PDA

View Full Version : Star Signs v Dancers



Minnie M
14th-August-2005, 08:19 PM
There seemed to be lots of birthdays last month, just wondered how our star signs match up to our dancing

Jazz_Shoes (Ash)
14th-August-2005, 08:30 PM
There seemed to be lots of birthdays last month, just wondered how our star signs match up to our dancing

What do you mean, match up? :confused:

Piglet
14th-August-2005, 08:31 PM
Like this poll Minnie - well done you for thinking it up.

I'm a Virgo and should get on with Taureans and Capricorn(ians?) but wonder if it adds up with regard to dancing partners - I'm going to start asking guys their star signs :rofl:

LMC
14th-August-2005, 08:51 PM
Ach, I don't believe in astrology, Cancerians never do

( blindingly obvious comeback but :clap: @me for getting there first)

Minnie M
14th-August-2005, 08:52 PM
What do you mean, match up? :confused:
Which star sign favours the dancer etc., or dancing partnership

Minnie M
14th-August-2005, 09:51 PM
( blindingly obvious comeback but :clap: @me for getting there first)
:confused:

DavidY
14th-August-2005, 10:02 PM
Graham did some stats (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?p=22410#post22410) a couple of years ago on the star signs of forumites.

Minnie M
15th-August-2005, 07:26 AM
Graham did some stats (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?p=22410#post22410) a couple of years ago on the star signs of forumites.
:cool: thanks David - so as at July 2003 The most common star sign amongst people who have registered their birthday (52% of members) is Aries, and the least common is Virgo. Mind you that was on registration not posts - we need ESG to do the poll acurately :flower:

Should be interesting to see what the situation is now, especially as we have lost quite a few forumites (not posting that is) since 2003

Minnie M
15th-August-2005, 07:30 AM
From the same thread I like this post from Ash dated 15 July 2003 (thanks Ash :flower: )

Dancing Around the Zodiac
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a rough guide to astrology and dancing: you can see the trait that stands out for your sign. They are a general description and won’t apply to everybody.

ARIES They are extrovert or in-your-face. But they are also impatient and impulsive, making mistakes when they learn routines: they don’t always finish what they start. They are also the daredevils of the zodiac, jumping first and thinking later! If you’ve seen Harold Nicholas (of the legendary Nicholas Brothers) dance you’ll see what I mean!

TAURUS This sign, more than any other, can show the extremes of dancing: they can be clumsy and slow or move like Fred Astaire. They’re sensuous nature makes them feel the music (& their partner!) but the resulting rhythm depends upon their ability!

GEMINI They are nimble-footed and agile: they’re very quick around the dance floor. They learn steps/routines very quickly and are young at heart. Frankie Manning, the legendary Lindy Hopper, is still teaching and dancing in his late eighties.

CANCER They don’t like to draw attention to themselves and hate to be the wallflower. They’re hypersensitive about what other people think about their dancing. There are, of course, exceptions: Ginger Rogers.

LEO They are the natural performers of the Zodiac, possessing charisma and personality. But they can also show-off and be more aware of the audience than their partner. They can look for applause, needing to feel noticed and appreciated. That’s why they can indulge in more complicated/flashy moves-as long as they can do them well. Gene Kelly is a famous lion.

VIRGO They’re the technicians on the dance floor. They can learn a routine or style precisely but they can worry too much about doing it perfectly. This can deprive them of spontaneity and flair. The precision can be used to good effect in the right feet: Michael Jackson.

LIBRA Image is very important to them: they like to be aesthetically pleasing! And it’s not just the clothes: they want to look stylish and graceful around the dance floor. They like a partner who makes them look good! Jayne Torvill is a famous example.

SCORPIO They are the sexbombs on the dance floor! Have you noticed their intense/hypnotic stare?! Their simmering passions can make them sensual and erotic, usually in a subtle way. (They don’t do things by halves and usually commit themselves 100% to any dance that interests them.)

SAGITTARIUS Their enthusiasm and enjoyment of life comes over in their dancing: they want to have fun! They are also very theatrical because everything has to be larger than life. They can use flashy/revealing clothes to get their point across…and don’t like to be upstaged! Busby Berkeley is a famous archer.

CAPRICORN They work long and hard to learn a style of dancing but the struggle can sap them of fun. This changes as they get older because they mellow out and have less of a need to stick to strict guidelines and rules. Anna Pavlova, the Russian ballet dancer, is a famous example.

AQUARIUS They are conservative or they like to experiment with the steps, trying different things. This results in originality, misguided steps or the need to be different for the sake of it. John Travolta is a quirky example.

PISCES They look like they’re floating on the dance floor because they’re light and airy. They know instinctively where their partner is going, almost blending in with them. Cyd Charisse is a famous fish.

David Bailey
15th-August-2005, 09:00 AM
LIBRA Image is very important to them: they like to be aesthetically pleasing! And it’s not just the clothes: they want to look stylish and graceful around the dance floor. They like a partner who makes them look good! Jayne Torvill is a famous example.

As a Libra, I can honestly say this really doesn't apply to me. Shame, really, sounds quite cool. :tears:

In fact, I'm not sure any of these styles describes me...

So, Astrology: pile of poo, basically. :devil:

Lory
15th-August-2005, 11:03 AM
I don't know which box to tick :confused: I'm on the cusp of Cancer and Leo! :rolleyes:

Purple Sparkler
15th-August-2005, 11:04 AM
TAURUS This sign, more than any other, can show the extremes of dancing: they can be clumsy and slow or move like Fred Astaire. They’re sensuous nature makes them feel the music (& their partner!) but the resulting rhythm depends upon their ability!

It IS a load of rubbish. And I don't DARE ask which of these my dance partners think I am.

Russell Saxby
15th-August-2005, 05:16 PM
I don't know which box to tick :confused: I'm on the cusp of Cancer and Leo! :rolleyes:

oh if only I was a cusp

Northants Girly
15th-August-2005, 05:21 PM
I don't know which box to tick :confused: I'm on the cusp of Cancer and Leo! :rolleyes:Surely a Leo with that lovely, long mane of yours! :flower:

Dance Demon
15th-August-2005, 06:00 PM
I don't know which box to tick :confused: I'm on the cusp

I think theres probably a few folk on the cusp :wink:

Night Owl
15th-August-2005, 06:39 PM
Scorpio


SEXBOMB :rofl:


AYE RIGHT :blush:

But I do enjoy dancing :clap:

RachD
15th-August-2005, 06:42 PM
Libra.... who wouldn't want to be all of these things? :nice:

Gojive
15th-August-2005, 07:19 PM
I think theres probably a few folk on the cusp :wink:


I'm on the turn I think :tears:

Taurus :waycool:

Seahorse
15th-August-2005, 08:02 PM
VIRGO They’re the technicians on the dance floor. They can learn a routine or style precisely but they can worry too much about doing it perfectly. This can deprive them of spontaneity and flair. The precision can be used to good effect in the right feet: Michael Jackson.


Hmm... bit cynical about this though would say that sometimes I do have to 'think' a move through before implimenting. Can't 'see' the move, then I can't do it... does that help?

Oh... and my dancing is a constant source of anxiety as spicen'easy and lee will confirm... hmmm... think I just wrote a note to New to london post saying that he should relax and enjoy himself... maybe it's 'bout time I listened to myself!!! :blush:

Daisy Chain
15th-August-2005, 08:43 PM
CANCER They don’t like to draw attention to themselves and hate to be the wallflower. They’re hypersensitive about what other people think about their dancing. There are, of course, exceptions: Ginger Rogers.

OMG, me to a T.

Daisy

(A Crabby Little Flower)

Now, I know personally one of the forumites and he has exactly the same birthday as me. When I met him several years ago, he was 1 year older than me. How strange that last month, we had a birthday and according to his birthday announcement on this forum, he is now 2 years younger than me. :whistle: How did that happen? :wink:

Ash
16th-August-2005, 12:05 AM
The guide to astrology and dancing is very general. For accuracy you would need to have your chart done (date, place and time of birth). And from that you would be surprised with the results...including dancing: you could see your approach to it.

I do this professionally, as well as palmistry...you can also pick up your dance moves, if you like, from your hands.

Ash

P.S. If you're on the cusp you can find out what sign you are, if you know your birth time.

David Bailey
16th-August-2005, 09:24 AM
I do this professionally, as well as palmistry...
Must resist...
Must resist...
Must resist...

No, sorry, I tried, but I couldn't.

Ash, one question - do you believe that the influence of all the major bodies in the solar system must be taken into account to arrive at an accurate horoscope?

And if so, were all the horoscopes done before, well, January 8th, 2005 (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/newplanet-072905-images.html) incorrect, since before that time, you were missing at least one planet from your inventory of important influences?

Or what about the ones before 1930 (the discovery of Pluto)? Even more wrong? Or 1781 (Uranus)? Or 1846 (Neptune)?

I could go on, but it's too easy to make fun of astrology, can someone give me a smaller target to hit?

Sorry for the rant, but this type of thing is a red rag to a bull for me... :blush:

Pink Lady
16th-August-2005, 11:27 AM
And today's poll so far shows the 2 crustaceans in the lead, with the goat, the water carrier and the fish hot on their tails!! (Said in best horse-race commentary style).
Sorry - I'm obviously not taking this terribly seriously! :wink:

Ash
16th-August-2005, 11:31 AM
Must resist... DavidJames

'Sir, I have studied. You have not.' That's what Issac Newton said to Edmund Halley, the royal astronomer , about astrology.

How can you condemn anything if you haven't looked into it?

Any field of study is evolving/developing-and astrology is no exception. The more planets we discover the greater the accuracy/understanding of astrology. And it doesn't just use planets but also planetoids and comets. It's all symbolic and depends upon the astrologer's interpretation/skill/method.

:)

Donna
16th-August-2005, 11:40 AM
As a Libra, I can honestly say this really doesn't apply to me. Shame, really, sounds quite cool. :tears:

In fact, I'm not sure any of these styles describes me...

So, Astrology: pile of poo, basically. :devil:

Hmmm mine does match up but I don't believe in astrology anyway. But good idea minnie for starting off this thread. :clap:

LMC
16th-August-2005, 11:44 AM
One of my favourite websites - http://www.csicop.org/

*breaks out the popcorn*

Mary
16th-August-2005, 11:54 AM
I'm a Cancer, and, I'm afraid to say it, but I think the cap fits. :rolleyes:

M

Cruella
16th-August-2005, 11:55 AM
TAURUS This sign, more than any other, can show the extremes of dancing: they can be clumsy and slow or move like Fred Astaire. They’re sensuous nature makes them feel the music (& their partner!) but the resulting rhythm depends upon their ability!
Interesting, i believe SilverFox is a Taurus. :rofl:



SCORPIO They are the sexbombs on the dance floor! Have you noticed their intense/hypnotic stare?! Their simmering passions can make them sensual and erotic, usually in a subtle way. (They don’t do things by halves and usually commit themselves 100% to any dance that interests them.)

And i'm a Scorpio!!!

Donna
16th-August-2005, 12:00 PM
TAURUS This sign, more than any other, can show the extremes of dancing: they can be clumsy and slow or move like Fred Astaire. They’re sensuous nature makes them feel the music (& their partner!) but the resulting rhythm depends upon their ability!
Interesting, i believe SilverFox is a Taurus. :rofl:



SCORPIO They are the sexbombs on the dance floor! Have you noticed their intense/hypnotic stare?! Their simmering passions can make them sensual and erotic, usually in a subtle way. (They don’t do things by halves and usually commit themselves 100% to any dance that interests them.)

And i'm a Scorpio!!!

bUURLIMEY...have you studied this or something??? You must ask people you dance with who their star signs are first?

David Bailey
16th-August-2005, 12:16 PM
'Sir, I have studied. You have not.' That's what Issac Newton said to Edmund Halley, the royal astronomer , about astrology.
Hey, cool quote!


How can you condemn anything if you haven't looked into it?
Never stopped me so far. But are you suggesting that only trained and professional astrologers can attempt to debunk astrology? I can't see that being too popular for some reason.


Any field of study is evolving/developing-and astrology is no exception. The more planets we discover the greater the accuracy/understanding of astrology. And it doesn't just use planets but also planetoids and comets.
OK, so how much accuracy was lost with only 6 known planets? 40%? And how do you measure the accuracy anyway - how do you tell "60% accuracy" from "random guesswork"?

Also, bear in mind that there may well be dozens more planet-ish bodies, out there in the Oort cloud - which itself may intersect with the Oort Cloud of other stars. In other words, where do you stop counting planetary bodies? 20 billion kilometres? 40? 10 AU? And what about the stars themselves - do stars in this or in other galaxies have any effect? And if so, what?


It's all symbolic and depends upon the astrologer's interpretation/skill/method.
That's not really giving me much extra confidence in the whole "field of study" thing - you might as well say "there are no rules" and make it up as you go along. :whistle:

Rant, rant, rant - I need to get out more...

Cruella
16th-August-2005, 12:22 PM
bUURLIMEY...have you studied this or something??? You must ask people you dance with who their star signs are first?
Not that clever, i just looked at the poll, it tells you who has put in their star signs. The rest was from Minnie Mouses post earlier in this thread. :innocent: !

JoC
16th-August-2005, 12:28 PM
Have they thought up a more fun name for that new planet yet?

(Me n' Cyd Charisse, peas in a pod!)

DavidY
16th-August-2005, 12:48 PM
Have they thought up a more fun name for that new planet yet?I think a lot of Douglas Adams' fans would go for "Rupert". He had a plot line in his last Hitchikers' book about a new planet being discovered and named "Rupert".

Can't remember details but IIRC a bunch of aliens shipwrecked somewhere in the solar system kidnapped Tricia Macmillan and asked her to rework out their horoscopes to include the new planet.

Lynn
16th-August-2005, 01:52 PM
I think a lot of Douglas Adams' fans would go for "Rupert". He had a plot line in his last Hitchikers' book about a new planet being discovered and named "Rupert".

Can't remember details but IIRC a bunch of aliens shipwrecked somewhere in the solar system kidnapped Tricia Macmillan and asked her to rework out their horoscopes to include the new planet.Yes. They were shipwrecked on Rupert and had lost all their memory (which had been saved in a part of the ship that had been hit by an asteroid). They watched lots of Earth TV and asked Tricia to amend the horoscopes from Rupert I think. (Though if they had lost their memory, how did they know when they were born?)

Lee
16th-August-2005, 04:55 PM
Libra.... who wouldn't want to be all of these things? :nice:

I'm Libra too!! :clap:

LIBRA Image is very important to them: they like to be aesthetically pleasing! And it’s not just the clothes: they want to look stylish and graceful around the dance floor. They like a partner who makes them look good! Jayne Torvill is a famous example. :cool:

Lee :D

David Bailey
16th-August-2005, 06:35 PM
LIBRA Image is very important to them: they like to be aesthetically pleasing! And it’s not just the clothes:
As a "Libra" (pah!) I willingly offer myself as a living, clear and extreme counter-example of this.

Whew, managed to squeeze one last rant for today - it was tough, but I'm worth it.

wicked blue
16th-August-2005, 07:30 PM
TAURUS This sign, more than any other, can show the extremes of dancing: they can be clumsy and slow or move like Fred Astaire. They’re sensuous nature makes them feel the music (& their partner!) but the resulting rhythm depends upon their ability!

Even if there was something in it which i'm not saying there isnt, but i have to say that i dont like what they say about us Taurus's!! :blush:

Ash
17th-August-2005, 12:46 AM
That's not really giving me much extra confidence in the whole "field of study" thing - you might as well say "there are no rules" and make it up as you go along. DavidJames
I think you're looking at astrology in a completely left-brained way. You expects things to be measured and quantified-but this subject, like intuition, art, poetry, love, spirituality, is a right-brained thing. Every astrologer will follow the fundamental rules but there are many layers of meaning and every practitioner can give you different insights. The key thing is about knowing yourself and where you are coming from: the birthchart is a blueprint of your character/destiny...its up to you what you make of it.

The only technical thing is the maths involved in constructing a birthchart. (And the planets involved are in our solar system.)

Many people have recognised the importance of astrology all through history: Issac Newton, Carl Jung, Ronald Reagan(he was inaugrated at a fortuitous time), even stockbrokers/investors use it.It's something you believe in or not.
:)

David Bailey
17th-August-2005, 08:36 AM
OK children, break out the extra-sized popcorn buckets, this could be a long one...


I think you're looking at astrology in a completely left-brained way.
Possibly - I'm famously cack-handed if that helps...

If you mean that I'm trying to apply some very feeble form of scientific methodology, by questioning the theory, then yep, I'm bang to rights.

(The "theory" I'm assuming as, put simply, "You can tell a lot about a person by knowing the time of year they were born in" - let me know if that's a complete misrepresentation of your views of course)


You expects things to be measured and quantified-but this subject, like intuition, art, poetry, love, spirituality, is a right-brained thing.

Every astrologer will follow the fundamental rules but there are many layers of meaning and every practitioner can give you different insights. The key thing is about knowing yourself and where you are coming from: the birthchart is a blueprint of your character/destiny...its up to you what you make of it.

The only technical thing is the maths involved in constructing a birthchart.
If it's not at least partially science-based, then why spend all this time on detailed mathematical calculations, following fairly strict rules, etc.? If you have rules / theories, that almost by definition means those can and should be tested and questioned.

And surely, if you're expecting me to believe anything about astrology, you have to answer one fundamental question: why. To quote astrosociety.org (http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/11/11.html):
"Why would the positions of celestial objects at the moment of our birth have an effect on our characters, lives, or destinies? What force, what influence, what sort of energy would travel from the planets and stars to all human beings and affect our development or fate?"


(And the planets involved are in our solar system.)
The point I was making is that the more we know about this stuff, the more simplistic concepts like "our solar system" turn out to be, well, simplistic. There's a lot of junk out there (space, rather than this post :innocent: ), with vaue connections to the Sun - some of this junk we happen to call planets, some we don't. Is Sedna a planet? I dunno - is it included in astrological charts?

Also, and again, why only the planets in our solar system? What's special about Pluto, compared to other bits of junk floating around there?


Many people have recognised the importance of astrology all through history: Issac Newton, Carl Jung, Ronald Reagan(he was inaugrated at a fortuitous time), even stockbrokers/investors use it.It's something you believe in or not. :)
Newton: apart from the quote to Halley, which could be interpreted as a simple put-down, there's not a huge amount of evidence that he was a major astrology fan. For example, out of 1700+ books in his library, he only had 4 on astrology. Newton also believed in transmutation (Philosopher's Stone stuff) and other wacky ideas - he had 170 books on alchemy. And, people believed a lot of things 400 years ago. Lots of astronomers then were also astrologers - e.g. Tycho Brahe, Galileo Galilei, and Johannes Kepler. Note: "then"...

Jung - well, I'm far from an expert on the guy, but it's hardly surprising he believed in astrology given his whole belief in synconicity. He also believed in spiritualism, telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance, ESP and the collective unconscious. And, no doubt, Santa Claus. And, to quote http://skepdic.com/jung.html, "Jung's defense of acausal connections is so inane I hesitate to repeat it". :)

Yep, Reagan famously allowed his wife's astrologer to dictate his schedule. And that scared the bejeesus out of me when I read that - I'm surprised we're all still here to tell the tale in fact.

The fact that lots of famous people believe something doesn't make it correct. For example, John Travolta is a Scientologist (as are the Jive Aces, to put some vaguely dance-related material here :) ), but that doesn't mean I'm convinced by their arguments.

Finally, :clap: to you for posting such a sensible reply at such an ungodly hour. I (obviously) disagree with what you're saying, but I like the way you say it :)

bigdjiver
17th-August-2005, 09:19 AM
We know that the planets and stars affect us, we would not be able to see them if they did not. We can measure their gravitational effect. We know that what we eat affects us, and that our diet has a seasonal content. We know that the weather affects us, and probably has an effect on the development of a child. We know that genetics affect our behaviour, and may well affect the time of year of conception, and may well determine how we behave throughout the seasons. There is therefore some scientific basis for astrology in that the planets and seasons affect us.

Most of these effects are so small as to be immeasurable. I have not seen any reliable scientific evidence that supports the bunkum that is served up by astrologers. (It is fun though)

LMC
17th-August-2005, 09:31 AM
We know that the planets and stars affect us, we would not be able to see them if they did not. We can measure their gravitational effect. We know that what we eat affects us, and that our diet has a seasonal content. We know that the weather affects us, and probably has an effect on the development of a child. We know that genetics affect our behaviour, and may well affect the time of year of conception, and may well determine how we behave throughout the seasons. There is therefore some scientific basis for astrology in that the planets and seasons affect us.

Most of these effects are so small as to be immeasurable. I have not seen any reliable scientific evidence that supports the bunkum that is served up by astrologers. (It is fun though)
:yeah:

"There is no fate but what we make"

(oops, wrong thread... Terminator II, just so this doesn't get sidetracked)

David Bailey
17th-August-2005, 09:38 AM
{ snip excellent points }
Most of these effects are so small as to be immeasurable. I have not seen any reliable scientific evidence that supports the bunkum that is served up by astrologers. (It is fun though)
David The Fun-Killer - this could just be my new sig...

Yes, I think the key problem is the lack of differentiation between "a relationship" and "a meaningful relationship".

Bit like life really :innocent:

David Bailey
17th-August-2005, 09:45 AM
"There is no fate but what we make"

Actually, I think you'll find the full quote is "There is no fate but what we make for ourselves".

(Yes, PS, I know how it's pronounced).


(oops, wrong thread... Terminator II, just so this doesn't get sidetracked)
Too late... :whistle:

Purple Sparkler
17th-August-2005, 10:25 AM
(Yes, PS, I know how it's pronounced).


Good, so you'll be able to pronounce this out loud:

PEDANT!

(Yes, I am aware it takes one to know one. Why do you ask?)

LMC
17th-August-2005, 10:46 AM
Actually, I think you'll find the full quote is "There is no fate but what we make for ourselves".

(Yes, PS, I know how it's pronounced).


Too late... :whistle:

Ah, you want pendantry? :whistle:

I never claimed it was a full quote... I happen to think the partial one sounds better... more dramatic... "Terminator II" as the source sounds more ridiculous (even though it's true)...

oh yes, astrology...

One of my favourite Evil things if "stars" are under discussion is to read people the ones for the wrong sign (i.e. not theirs). Then listen to them burble on a bit about how true/applicable it is... In my admittedly limited experience, even supposedly personal horoscopes are could be applied to almost any situation and the scientific basis is the astrologer's good working knowledge and experience of human nature/desires. Not the location of some bit of rock.

David Bailey
17th-August-2005, 11:02 AM
Ah, you want pendantry? :whistle:
No.

One of my favourite Evil things if "stars" are under discussion is to read people the ones for the wrong sign (i.e. not theirs). Then listen to them burble on a bit about how true/applicable it is...
Ah, you really are Evil, aren't you? :worthy:

MartinHarper
17th-August-2005, 11:17 AM
AQUARIUS They are conservative or they like to experiment

I should take up astrology.

SCORPIO: They are left-handed, or they are right-handed.
PISCES: They are male or female.
TAURUS: They all have heads.
URSUS EXCREMENTUS: Mostly in woods.

Mary
17th-August-2005, 11:33 AM
I was beginning to find this thread interesting to read and was enjoying the debate between Ash and DJ.

As there is still so much about ourselves (as a species) and the universe that we still don't understand I always try and keep an open mind about a lot of things.

Just a couple of centuries ago we didn't know why lots of stuff happened or occured, and gradually science has been able to let us understand and explain - but there's always going to be stuff we still can't explain, and just because we can't, apparently, logically or scientifically explain it at the moment doesn't stop it from being so. (Ummm, am I still making sense?)

Telepathy. No real reason why we can't use it. It's still all impulses and wavelengths and frequencies. But I guess that's all bunkum as well, as is all the other untapped and untrained parts of the brain.

M

Rhythm King
17th-August-2005, 12:02 PM
Telepathy. No real reason why we can't use it. It's still all impulses and wavelengths and frequencies. But I guess that's all bunkum as well, as is all the other untapped and untrained parts of the brain.

M

I knew you were going to say that.

David Bailey
17th-August-2005, 12:04 PM
Just a couple of centuries ago we didn't know why lots of stuff happened or occured, and gradually science has been able to let us understand and explain - but there's always going to be stuff we still can't explain, and just because we can't, apparently, logically or scientifically explain it at the moment doesn't stop it from being so. (Ummm, am I still making sense?)
Possibly.

But there's a world of difference between "There's clearly stuff happening, and I dunno why" and "Your fate is ruled by the stars. Or possibly just the planets. The 9 planets, that is. Because I said so. And don't ask for any proof."


Telepathy. No real reason why we can't use it. It's still all impulses and wavelengths and frequencies.
We obviously interact in a non-touching way all the time with our environment. But again, that's something where the people attempt to prove the theory rather than disprove it. Which is just, technically speaking, dumb.


all the other untapped and untrained parts of the brain.
This one also makes me laugh - the fabled 10% of the brain. It's like saying "I only use 10% of my entire musculature to dance - if only I could unlock the other 90% I'd be ten times better as a dancer." We may only use 10% for a given task, but that's because that 10% is dedicated to that task - the other 90% is, you know, doing other stuff.

OK, I'm on a roll now, bring up your sacred cows for slaughter...

LMC
17th-August-2005, 12:11 PM
OK, I'm on a roll now, bring up your sacred cows for slaughter...

Father Christmas.

Re: telepathy - given that the nervous system works on electrical signals then there is, scientifically, a possibility that someone could recognise/read these. But very very very very unlikely IMO, so (invoking Occam's Razor), I would always cry "coincidence" to any claim of psychic powers unless it could be scientifically proved that there is no other explanation.

JoC
17th-August-2005, 12:12 PM
PISCES: They are male or female. This is so true!!! Exactly, it's uncanny! Some days I'm male and some days I'm female, could you really tell that from my birth date? Do you do detailed charts? I must know what the rest of this year has in store for me.

Lou
17th-August-2005, 12:20 PM
This is so true!!! Exactly, it's uncanny!
Pah. That's rubbish. He meant Aquarius. :rolleyes:

stewart38
17th-August-2005, 12:21 PM
Possibly.


This one also makes me laugh - the fabled 10% of the brain. It's like saying "I only use 10% of my entire musculature to dance - if only I could unlock the other 90% I'd be ten times better as a dancer." We may only use 10% for a given task, but that's because that 10% is dedicated to that task - the other 90% is, you know, doing other stuff.

OK, I'm on a roll now, bring up your sacred cows for slaughter...

No its not

I dont know exact numbers but we use say 10% of the Brain period, Einstein 13% etc

i read this and it maybe totally b***** if i used 25% om my brain id be able to quote you the reference

David Bailey
17th-August-2005, 12:30 PM
I dont know exact numbers but we use say 10% of the Brain period, Einstein 13% etc
Err, no.

It's actually an urban legend (or "meme" if you're posh)

See here (http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm) for a reasonably clear refutation.

Or, for a Pratchettian slant:
"It's a popular fact that 90% of the brain is not used and, like most popular facts, it is wrong. Not even the most stupid Creator would go to the trouble of making the human head carry around several pounds of unnecessary grey goo if its only real purpose was, eg, to serve as a delicacy for certain remote tribesmen in unexplored valleys, it is used. One of its functions is to make the miraculous seem ordinary, and turn the unusual into the usual. Otherwise, human beings, forced with the daily wondrousness of everything, would go around wearing a stupid grin, saying "WOW" a lot. Part of the brain exists to stop this happening. It is very efficient, and can make people experience boredom in the middle of marvels "


Father Christmas.
Antiquated relic of an outmoded belief system.

(Whilst I'm in Pratchett mode)

Next?

Mary
17th-August-2005, 12:33 PM
Oh, heck, I knew I shouldn't have come into this one :cool:

I am a terrible fence-sitter, and always seems to see both sides of an argument - either that or I am so gullible I believe anything that may remotely sound plausible!!

On the one hand I too cannot really see how the position of planets in our solar system can affect who we are and what we should do, on the other hand, until it can be categorically proved otherwise I am in no position to say it can't happen.

OK, it's a cop out, but like I said, I always try and keep an open mind, and give people the benefit of the doubt. But I am also soft. :rolleyes: I tried debating at college when I was young and idealistic - I was crap at it!!!

On an aside, in the last year or so, I have been using other muscles and can now do a lot more stuff with my dancing that I did previously - just took a bit of training. Doesnt' mean to say my dancing is any better tho'. :wink:

R-K huh, you read my mind.

OK. Off to do some work in the sun while it's still shining.

M

DavidY
17th-August-2005, 12:36 PM
I can't be bothered to type it again, but here is what I said (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?p=22486#post22486) in the past when we had a thread on this.

The gist is that I don't believe astrology predicts the future, but I think it's possible to devised mechanisms by which people born at the same time of year may share personality traits.

See also for instance http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3600313.stm

LMC
17th-August-2005, 12:41 PM
Father Christmas
Antiquated relic of an outmoded belief system.

:what:


:tears:

Some interesting articles on here, thanks folks :nice: :flower:

JoC
17th-August-2005, 12:42 PM
Otherwise, human beings, forced with the daily wondrousness of everything, would go around wearing a stupid grin, saying "WOW" a lot.I do this some days, does that mean I'm missing a bit of my brain or that I'm using more of it? My head hurts, bit missing seems more likely then, sigh...


OK. Off to do some work in the sun while it's still shining.We have clammy cloud :sad: .

under par
17th-August-2005, 12:43 PM
I knew you were going to say that.

That is dejas vu I'm sure I seen you post that before. :wink:

ducasi
17th-August-2005, 01:22 PM
The gist is that I don't believe astrology predicts the future, but I think it's possible to devised mechanisms by which people born at the same time of year may share personality traits. :yeah:

ducasi
17th-August-2005, 01:23 PM
OK, I'm on a roll now, bring up your sacred cows for slaughter... Hmm... Better not say anything about my theory on names... :whistle: (But did you ever wonder why there are so many Davids on this forum???)

David Bailey
17th-August-2005, 02:25 PM
Hmm... Better not say anything about my theory on names... :whistle: (But did you ever wonder why there are so many Davids on this forum???)
No, coz it's a common name - second commonest name in Britan, apparently.

Next?

David The Commoner

ducasi
17th-August-2005, 02:34 PM
No, coz it's a common name - second commonest name in Britan, apparently. What's the most common?

David Bailey
17th-August-2005, 02:59 PM
What's the most common?
Hey, I don't do useful, just destruction.

bigdjiver
17th-August-2005, 03:11 PM
Father Christmas.

Re: telepathy - given that the nervous system works on electrical signals then there is, scientifically, a possibility that someone could recognise/read these. But very very very very unlikely IMO, so (invoking Occam's Razor), I would always cry "coincidence" to any claim of psychic powers unless it could be scientifically proved that there is no other explanation.I would go for "coincidence" too, but the mind remains open. During the war my Mother dreamt that she was following a bobbing green light, and whenever it turned red she had to stop. For some reason she felt petrified with fear. She told her friend Trixie about it. Later that day the news broke about the El Alemain offensive. When my father got back he told my mother how scared he had been on that night, following through the wire the guys prodding for mines with bayonets, with little lights on their back, green for proceed ...

bigdjiver
17th-August-2005, 03:14 PM
I remeber a talk by Dick Pick in which he said that the most common 1st name on his database was Mohammed, and the most common surname was Smith. Curiously there were no Mohammed Smiths.

JoC
17th-August-2005, 03:24 PM
What's the most common?
John?

Remember being told how my name was the female version of the most basic name by the German teacher, then followed a year of being called 'Basic' (amongst other derogatory nick-names, how I loved school...).

That doesn't help at all in determining the most common I expect. :o

Now then, is there any correlation between names and star signs?

Ash
17th-August-2005, 03:32 PM
If it's not at least partially science-based, then why spend all this time on detailed mathematical calculations, following fairly strict rules, etc.? If you have rules / theories, that almost by definition means those can and should be tested and questioned.DavidJames
When you construct a birthchart it's unique to the person in question. (The horoscopes in the papers are a bit of fun and shouldn't be taken seriously.) Even a difference of 5 minutes can be significant. You take the date, time and place of birth and construct a unique picture. (This has been tested by Michel and Françoise Gauquelin, both statisticians and psychologists, who studied thousands of charts and found many patterns, including the way planets corresponded with particular jobs.)

I'm a sceptic and I usually need to test things out and I know from first hand experience that it works. Like tarot cards, esp., ghosts etc. it doesn't lend itself to the narrow confines of science: it's too black and white. (The best scientist go beyond logic and use their intuition, like Einstein, who dreamt his theory of relativity.)

I find that 98% of interest for astrology (and the mystical stuff) comes from females. I think it's because they're in touch with their feminine side and have an open mind. I think males, generally, are more rigid in their thinking and need to rationalize everything. (That's why they can find it harder to talk about their emotions etc.)

Don't ask me how but I know it works. To quote Hamlet:
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

:)

Lou
17th-August-2005, 03:37 PM
No, coz it's a common name - second commonest name in Britan, apparently.
But falling rapidly. According to this article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1418097,00.html) in the Times on-line, David was only the 52nd most popular name for boys last year.

You're an endangered species!

David Bailey
17th-August-2005, 04:16 PM
Ding, ding! Places please...


Even a difference of 5 minutes can be significant. You take the date, time and place of birth
OK, then my next awkward question is: why birth? Surely the time conception would be more of a the key moment to determining life etc. Especially now that birth dates can be altered artificially.

Surely it couldn't be that birth is easier to measure... I'll also be amazed if people know their conception date to within 5 minutes. :innocent:


I'm a sceptic and I usually need to test things out and I know from first hand experience that it works.
Err, technically, a sceptic starts from the premise that it doesn't work, and tries to devise tests to prove that it doesn't work. If all these tests fail, the sceptic may then grudgingly accept the hypothesis, mumbling and whingeing all the time, and trying to devise more tests to disprove the hypothesis. That's how human knowledge advances.


Like tarot cards, esp., ghosts etc. it doesn't lend itself to the narrow confines of science: it's too black and white. (The best scientist go beyond logic and use their intuition, like Einstein, who dreamt his theory of relativity.)
I'm happy to accept that it's not a science, it's a faith; in which case it's pointless discussing belief, because these things almost by definition are non-debatable; you either believe or you don't. Or discussing "Is Swing better than Latin" - it depends on your taste.

But most astrologers seem to want to insist astrology has a rational basis, and certainly attempt to use the tools of much-derided science. And it's the "Look, it works" argument which implies a set of rules "it" must "work" to.

I'm happy with "Look, it works for me" - as I would be for a discussion on dance styles, art preferences, religion, favourite foods, or other personal-taste areas.

What I have a problem with is someone attempting to claim simultaneous "proof" and "it's not science" - the two aren't compatible in my opinion.


(The best scientist go beyond logic and use their intuition, like Einstein, who dreamt his theory of relativity.)
After a heavy chicken tikka I imagine, I get these dreams myself...

Einstein and his contemporaries devised tests of his theories, the results of which would either confirm or deny his theories. Lots and lots of tests. Very boring to go through, as anyone who's studied physics will tell you, but necessary.

And Einstein famously got it "wrong" (for the scientific value of "wrong") when his intuition told him "God does not play dice with the universe". And tests proved him wrong with that one. Intuition is great, but if you can't prove it, it's just faith.


I find that 98% of interest for astrology (and the mystical stuff) comes from females. I think it's because they're in touch with their feminine side and have an open mind. I think males, generally, are more rigid in their thinking and need to rationalize everything. (That's why they can find it harder to talk about their emotions etc.)
Well, I'm going to go and have a good cry about that, right now.

You may be right, but I'll avoid the dicussion of male / female behavioural patterns for a while...

Oh, and:

You're an endangered species!
Or, I'm acquiring novelty value :)

JoC
17th-August-2005, 06:24 PM
Ash??? (probably take some time to respond to that one I suppose...)


how will this end? the suspense is unbearable!

Ash
17th-August-2005, 06:26 PM
What I have a problem with is someone attempting to claim simultaneous "proof" and "it's not science" - the two aren't compatible in my opinion.DavidJames
Astrology isn’t a pure science or a pure art…the science part is the mathematical construction of the birthchart-but the art is in the interpretation. It doesn’t fit into a convenient box.

I think Einstein was right when he said that God doesn’t play dice with the cosmos. I think there is a design to the universe:

‘Only the pattern is cosmically determined, not any particular event; within that pattern Man is free.’
Johannes Kepler: astronomer and astrologer

I think if you’re going to look at it in a purely logical way then we could talk about this ad infinitum. Have you tried using your intuition? Some things we can just know without having to know them in pedantic detail. (When you’re in love, for example, it’s a feeling and not a long winded essay.)

Maybe you should try studying astrology. :devil:

David Bailey
17th-August-2005, 07:30 PM
Astrology isn’t a pure science or a pure art…the science part is the mathematical construction of the birthchart-but the art is in the interpretation. It doesn’t fit into a convenient box.
Sure, many areas of study - psychology and economics come to mind - are "soft science", sometimes more guesswork than not, with different and often conflicting models. But all these areas still have basic models, which always have reasons why something happens. For example, in economics, trade promotes economic growth because improved communications of ideas and materials leads to improved utilisation of resources (I'm not an economist, but I think that's the basic idea).

I've still heard no basic theory as to why the orbit of Pluto affects my behaviour, characteristics and destiny. Without that, you just have faith - which as I said, is "either believe in it or not", so is pointless to debate.

I need a "why"...


I think Einstein was right when he said that God doesn’t play dice with the cosmos. I think there is a design to the universe:

‘Only the pattern is cosmically determined, not any particular event; within that pattern Man is free.’
Johannes Kepler: astronomer and astrologer

The actual Einstein quote is:
"Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory yields a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the secret of the Old One. In any case I am convinced that He doesn't play dice."

The main part is the last sentence of course; it refers to the sceptism Einstein felt towards the Uncertainty Principle - the whole concept of randomness and unpredictability at the basic level of the natural order. But, empirical progress via observation and testing has led to the general scientific consensus that quantum mechanics is a valid (or at least a more valid) way of modelling physical behaviour. So far :)

There's always room for disagreement, but if you don't offer any proof to back up your opinion, we're again reduced to discussing different basic faiths and beliefs.


Have you tried using your intuition? Some things we can just know without having to know them in pedantic detail. (When you’re in love, for example, it’s a feeling and not a long winded essay.)
Well, OK then - my intuition tells me that, human nature and gullibility being what they are, it's easier for lots of people to believe in "psychic phenomena" than take the time and effort to research the area in question. It takes little effort to hold your mind way way open. So as most people (me included) are lazy, we're inclined to believe the simplistic and glamorous interpretations, especially if those interpretations give meaning to our lives.

Or putting it another way, people are easy to fool.

That's about as intuitive as I get... :innocent:


how will this end? the suspense is unbearable!
Hee, maybe we should just stop and say "OK, you win", see how many people that annoys :)

DavidY
17th-August-2005, 08:11 PM
The "theory" I'm assuming as, put simply, "You can tell a lot about a person by knowing the time of year they were born in" As you've expressed it there, this has elements of being a plausible theory.

Here's a mechanism:

(a) If you are at stage x of your development in the womb during darkness of cold winter, you are likely to be exposed to certain levels of various hormones (from the mother) as will other people conceived around the same time.

(b) If you are at stage x when it's bright warm summer, 6 months later, you might get exposed to different levels of hormones, and again these are likely to be similar to other people conceived at the same time.

If you assume that levels of hormones you are exposed to at stage x in the womb might affect your personality, then 1,000 people in (a) might share some similar traits with each other which they don't share with 1,000 people in (b).

So I think that, at a statistical-on-average-y sort of way, there could be something in the theory as you've described it.

I don't think it's an exact science - I think the month of birth might make a difference but not week/ day/ hour/ minute/second - and I don't think any celestial bodies have anything to do with it except the Sun and possibly the Moon.

I think there's a Dilbert cartoon along similar lines somewhere too (so there must be something in it)

David Bailey
17th-August-2005, 08:23 PM
As you've expressed it there, this has elements of being a plausible theory.
Oh good. 'Coz, you know, that's exactly what I was trying to do, create a plausible General Theory of Astrology.


{ snip argument about hormones }
OK, the one immediately obvious gaping hole in that argument is the implicit assumption that the climate is the same everywhere on the planet. Unless you're positing specific horoscopes based on specific geographical areas?

So, *trap-door opening and fading scream sound*, next?


I think there's a Dilbert cartoon along similar lines somewhere too (so there must be something in it)
:rofl: Ah, now you're bringing out the big guns, hmm?

JoC
17th-August-2005, 08:46 PM
So, *trap-door opening and fading scream sound*, next?
Time travel please.

Just read mini article that says a couple of physicists "have shown that the most basic features of quantum theory may ensure that time travellers could never alter the past, even if they are able to go back in time". Doesn't discount the possibility of time travel though.

JoC
17th-August-2005, 09:00 PM
Ooh! Got another one!!! Are there extra-terrestrials living on earth? Oh no, don't start that one actually, I'll start having nightmares again :what: :blush:

(while i'm there, a new crop circle appeared in Fife the other night, apparently shaped like an ovum with three sperm around it) I've not been to see it in case I get beamed up...

DavidY
17th-August-2005, 10:21 PM
OK, the one immediately obvious gaping hole in that argument is the implicit assumption that the climate is the same everywhere on the planet. Unless you're positing specific horoscopes based on specific geographical areas?I didn't say anything about horoscopes or predicting the future. I was just saying it's a plausible theory that you can tell a lot about someone by knowing the time of year when they were born.

I think astrology has its origins in times when hardly anyone travelled very far from their place of birth so people with similar birthdays would be more homogeneous.

I notice Ash says you need to know the place of birth to do a horoscope though.

ducasi
17th-August-2005, 11:51 PM
I've still heard no basic theory as to why the orbit of Pluto affects my behaviour, characteristics and destiny. Without that, you just have faith - which as I said, is "either believe in it or not", so is pointless to debate.

I need a "why"... Why?

There's lots of science which is ultimately based on belief because we have no way of knowing for sure, and no way to prove the hypothesis. Like so much of astronomy... Isn't the argument is "well it works with what we know to be true?"

I used to be a true-born sceptic of astrology. Then I was shown examples of (blind) astrological readings which had an uncanny match with the people involved. Further observations has shown to me that the broad sweeps of astronomy's brush can often hit the mark. (More often that statistical probability would allow.)

I would never, ever base any important decisions on astronomy, but it doesn't stop it being an interesting phenomena.

Likewise, I'm open to the possibility of all sorts of "far-out" stuff, based on ideas like the above Shakespearian quote, and "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." – Arthur C. Clarke.

Oh, and my signature quote... (Which, if it changes, will result in this post making even less sense that I think DJ will attribute it with. :wink:)

Ash
18th-August-2005, 12:11 AM
There's always room for disagreement, but if you don't offer any proof to back up your opinion, we're again reduced to discussing different basic faiths and beliefs.DavidJames
If you want some proof then you could always study the work of the Gauquelins. Otherwise there is no ‘why’…it just works. (Just like tarot cards, rune stones etc.)

I saw a program on autistic people and the amazing powers they have, like calculating enormous sums. A subject said the answers just came to him-without him actually physically working it out in his head. There are things we can't explain and the spiritual side is a good example. (Do you believe in God? Are you an atheist? Do you believe that we can reduce love to a laboratory experiment?)

I haven’t seen ‘What the bleep do we know?’ It’s a new film which, I think, actually makes a connection between mysticism and science. It’ll be interesting to watch.

You might think people are gullible about the mystic side…but that equally applies to science. It has lied/been wrong in the past. Doctors thought smoking was good before the 1950s, for example. Or how about the different drugs that have been wrongly given to people. (And equally there are charlatans on the mystic side.)

I think, when it comes to astrology, you’re trying to understand a foreign language-without being able to speak it.

:)

bigdjiver
18th-August-2005, 01:15 AM
Someone complained to my boss that a program that he wrote ran too slowly. He added a display statement, so that the workings so far appeared on the screen. Thios of course made the program run more slowly. The client took a look at all of the screens full of numbers flashing by and congratulated him on his remarkable speed-up improvement.

The relevance of this? The brain usually comes with a "display" option, so that one part is monitoring what another is doing. This slows down the processes dramatically. The feats of the human brain whilst asleep, or by savants who perform those amazing mental feats, happen because the processes are not being monitored. The people concerned have no idea how they did that. I have, when younger, experienced just such happenings. Results that appeared in an intuitive flash, or when wakening, have turned out to be correct after hours of calculation. In one case the answer to a logic puzzle came in just a second or two, but it took four hours for me to prove it correct, and to generate a general procedure for solving such puzzles. I never solved one anything like so quickly again. The method for drill path near optimization (travelling salesman problem) occured to me in a flash after hours of futile struggle over the problem. I have no idea what the mental process was. Songs have come to me as fast as I can write them down. One theory is that the right brain is doing the work, unsupervised by the left brain.

If it is possible that part of or brain is reaching the right conclusions subconciously, the possibility must be considered that it can be making mistakes subconciously too. Adding 2 and 2 to make 22, and seeing Astrology as a conclusion.

People can be genetically programmed to be more fertile at certain seasons, or to possibly to produce sperm or eggs biased genetically, making it more probable that certain traits conducive to particular careers cluster at a certain time of the year. Another possibility is that the young human goes through a certain development stage in the brain after a certain period. If that stage is in spring when new buildings are being started, the the brain is biased one way, if it is in the middle of winter, there is a bias towards the activities of the adults at that time of the year. There are other explanations for careers being linked to birth dates that seem more likely than astrology.

The Tarot always amuses me. The cards tell the story? Why do the come out differently on the next deal?

David Bailey
18th-August-2005, 08:39 AM
Time travel please.
Welll, never say never, and I'm a loong way from knowing much about current physics. But I believe the whole concept of time, the past, and the future is really a human invention. There's only the "now", which sounds very Zen, but put another way, "time" is the description of the entropic function. So if there's no past per se, there's nowhere to go back to. But I could be wrong...

Going forward in time is relatively easy, in fact everyone does that every day, one second a second :)
Going forward "faster" shouldn't be too difficult, if only by such means as cryogenics / travelling really quickly (e.g. 99%+ of lightspeed). So it's nothing fundamentally difficult, "just" engineering.


Ooh! Got another one!!! Are there extra-terrestrials living on earth?
If I had the capability to travel between solar systems, the first thing I'd do (and yes, I've read HHGTTH) is probably not create grafitti in a field in Fife. It's not impossible, and doesn't seem to be quite as inherently ridiculous as, ahem, other functions - but it seems way unlikely.

Normal service will now resume...

David Bailey
18th-August-2005, 09:00 AM
OK, even by my standards this is a biggy...

First, the easy one:

I didn't say anything about horoscopes or predicting the future. I was just saying it's a plausible theory that you can tell a lot about someone by knowing the time of year when they were born.
If you know enough information about a person's conception, mother's environment, mother's travel habits, 9 months' of weather conditions and so on, I'll grudgingly concede that you can maybe infer some small fraction of estimations about certain aspects of that character.

But it'll be trivial, utterly insignificant, compared to the information you can infer from almost any other method - e.g. scans, genetic information, parent's health history, cultural and environmental information, and so on.

Sorry, you're still desperately swimming in that shark tank whilst I watch and stroke my pu - err, cat. :)


I think astrology has its origins in times when hardly anyone travelled very far from their place of birth so people with similar birthdays would be more homogeneous.
There may be some truth in that as a plausible explanation of why people thought there could be some basis in astrology 500 years ago. In a modern Western society, no.

Sharks are closing in - any last words?

Next:

Why?

There's lots of science which is ultimately based on belief because we have no way of knowing for sure, and no way to prove the hypothesis. Like so much of astronomy... Isn't the argument is "well it works with what we know to be true?"

True, ultimately all "whys" are answered with "because".

But this "because", in real science, can be tested and proved or disproved, and is based on observations and sceptical experimentations, with lots of people trying to prove the theory wrong. And if it's proved wrong, the theory is discarded. Newtonian physics was replaced with Einsteinian, for example.


I would never, ever base any important decisions on astronomy, but it doesn't stop it being an interesting phenomena.
I'm gonna assume you meant "astrology" here... But yes, it's interesting. As is Scientology, flat-earthism, and other such cultural phenomena.

And, back to our scheduled programme:


If you want some proof then you could always study the work of the Gauquelins. Otherwise there is no ‘why’…it just works. (Just like tarot cards, rune stones etc.)
I refer you to the "Why" response above.


I saw a program on autistic people and the amazing powers they have, like calculating enormous sums. A subject said the answers just came to him-without him actually physically working it out in his head.
Well, I'm convinced.

Seriously, unless you're telling me the guy was also a world-renowned expert on the mental processing and workings of the brain, I'm not impressed by what someone "thought" was happening in their mind. I'm very prepared to believe the mind plays tricks on us, however, creating arbitrary associations and meanings and linkings when none exist.


There are things we can't explain and the spiritual side is a good example. (Do you believe in God? Are you an atheist? Do you believe that we can reduce love to a laboratory experiment?)
Depends on the lab... :whistle:

Seriously, there's no way I'm going into these areas - my spirituality or lack thereof is my own.



You might think people are gullible about the mystic side…but that equally applies to science. It has lied/been wrong in the past. Doctors thought smoking was good before the 1950s, for example. Or how about the different drugs that have been wrongly given to people. (And equally there are charlatans on the mystic side.)
We're actually getting frighteningly close to agreeing here. Classic example of a science hoax is Piltdown Man. Or, crop circles of course :)

To me, though, the difference is that poor science gets exposed by peer review, and corrected. For example, the recent MMR scare. But poor astrology - when was the last time an astrologer was exposed as a fake? And, frankly, how could you tell?


I think, when it comes to astrology, you’re trying to understand a foreign language-without being able to speak it. :)
Wibble.

Just had to get that in one more time...

Ash
18th-August-2005, 11:41 AM
Seriously, there's no way I'm going into these areas - my spirituality or lack thereof is my own.DavidJames
It is your own...but at the same time it's relevant to the subject at hand. If you're lacking in spirituality then there's no point, really, in continuing this discussion as we're coming from completely different places. Or if you are spiritual then that's important. You could be, for example, a Christian. And that would colour your point of view.

So where are you coming from?

David Bailey
18th-August-2005, 12:11 PM
It is your own...but at the same time it's relevant to the subject at hand. If you're lacking in spirituality then there's no point, really, in continuing this discussion as we're coming from completely different places. Or if you are spiritual then that's important.
So I have to be spiritual to have an opinion on astrology? Not sure why - do I have to be an astronaut to have an opinion about space travel? Or, do I have to be a woman to have an opinion about abortion? Or a political activist to have an opinion about politics?

For what it's worth, I have absolutely no idea how much spirituality I have - although I tend to run away from people who proclaim how spiritual they are, in case they start on the wibble-route.


You could be, for example, a Christian. And that would colour your point of view.
Sure. If I were an evangelical Christian, hypothetically, I'd be very anti-astrology, in the same way as I'd be very anti-Satanism, Wicca-ism, etc. I presume that's what you meant? :whistle:


So where are you coming from?
Finchley normally.

Beyond that, I don't really plan to discuss my beliefs at that level, and so I agree we're at an impasse.

So, it's been fun debating, and I respect the dignified way you've handled my ranting attack on your profession, so shall we leave it at that?
(I've now voted in the poll!)

Next controversial topic: Gaza pullout - about time too, or giving in to terrorism... :)

Mary
18th-August-2005, 02:34 PM
So, it's been fun debating, and I respect the dignified way you've handled my ranting attack on your profession, so shall we leave it at that?
(I've now voted in the poll!)

Next controversial topic: Gaza pullout - about time too, or giving in to terrorism... :)


Aww David don't stop now, this is absolutely fascinating. I'm hooked.
:flower:

M

David Bailey
18th-August-2005, 02:36 PM
Aww David don't stop now, this is absolutely fascinating. I'm hooked.
:flower:

M
Well I could be bribed with a bit of rep... :devil:

El Salsero Gringo
18th-August-2005, 03:53 PM
If you want some proof then you could always study the work of the Gauquelins. Otherwise there is no ‘why’…it just works. (Just like tarot cards, rune stones etc.) Wow. This has got to be the silliest post in this thread so far. And believe me, that's saying something. Something that anyone claims works without a 'why' is like witchcraft and alchemy. Imaginative, but nonetheless false.
I saw a program on autistic people and the amazing powers they have, like calculating enormous sums. A subject said the answers just came to him-without him actually physically working it out in his head.Meaningless. Do you have any idea how you yourself understand the concept of the number three?
There are things we can't explain and the spiritual side is a good example. (Do you believe in God? Are you an atheist? Do you believe that we can reduce love to a laboratory experiment?)

You might think people are gullible about the mystic side…but that equally applies to science. It has lied/been wrong in the past. Doctors thought smoking was good before the 1950s, for example. Or how about the different drugs that have been wrongly given to people. (And equally there are charlatans on the mystic side.)There's nothing 'unscientific' about being wrong. In fact it's the most scientific thing in the world. It's only scientists who, in the course of the their work - routinely and without a hint of embarassment - are able to say things like 'Yes - you were correct, and I was completely wrong. I am happy to adopt your theory as both useful, and predictive.' That, after all, is the whole point of science. To correct, and improve. When was the last time you heard a churchman, or spiritualist, or astrologer come up with anything similar?

By the way, David, Einstein's Theory of (special) relativity hasn't shown Newtonian Relativity to be 'wrong'. Newtonian Relativity can calculate the position of the planets (very useful for those charlatans that call themselves astrologers), take man to the moon as well as cope with anything you throw at it here on earth. In science - physics in particular - one doesn't ask what is 'correct'. One asks what is useful and can demonstrate predictive power. Newton's equations do that extremely well within certain bounds. Einstein's extend those bounds further. And the complete inability of astrology to come up with a single useful prediction (despite concerning itself ostentatiously with the future) is the weakness that gives away the big lie.

David Bailey
18th-August-2005, 03:57 PM
Well I could be bribed with a bit of rep... :devil:
Oh hell, I'm back.

OK then, where were we...


If you want some proof then you could always study the work of the Gauquelins. Otherwise there is no ‘why’…it just works. (Just like tarot cards, rune stones etc.)
Presumably this referes to: Gauquelin, Michel and Francoise...

Wikipedia has an entry on the man here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauquelin). Interesting guy, and certainly his "Mars effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_effect) " controversy (wherein he claimed to find a statistical correlation between Mars risings and sports champion performance, is at least worthy of serious debate.

But, to quote Wikipedia, the world's greatest knowledge source ( :clap: ):
"Of all the many analyses performed by Gauquelin, all failed to conclude that astrology had any such validity - with the exception of the one statistical analysis that forms the basis of what became known as the Mars effect. In this one case, the underlying results are anomalous. Because of this, the Mars effect has been the subject of considerable controversy. However, it is important to note that the Mars effect is unknown to traditional astrology; prior to the controversy, no astrologer had ever used or even suspected the existence of such an effect - indeed, Mars in the given position should not relate to sports achievement at all."

So I'm less than convinced by the results of one study out of many, conducted by a clearly unstable guy who IMO just wanted to make a name for himself - the Professor Roy Meadows of astrology, I'd say, if I were being cruel...

Mary
18th-August-2005, 05:16 PM
ESG I wondered how long it would take for you to get involved. Ash, you can't leave it there, you've given some great responses so far, you have to fight back. :clap:

M

Trousers
19th-August-2005, 12:55 AM
ARIES They are extrovert or in-your-face. But they are also impatient and impulsive, making mistakes when they learn routines: they don’t always finish what they start. They are also the daredevils of the zodiac, jumping first and thinking later! If you’ve seen Harold Nicholas (of the legendary Nicholas Brothers) dance you’ll see what I mean!

What's this making mistakes rubbish. . . . . I'm an Aries don't you know I'm right?

Trousers
19th-August-2005, 01:02 AM
Can some one go off and do loads of research in the same vein as this but on the Chinese horoscope system.

I'm a Dragon (yeah ok ok) It's a lucky sign.

But the only bit I can really remember was that the book I had said Dragons were and I quote Barry Fantoni here "Sexual Artists". Obviously the cheque was straight in the post after that.

I just didn't see the section on Dancing.

Go on someone must have some time to do that.
The chinese system is very flattering it should be interesting.

JoC
19th-August-2005, 01:22 PM
Saw a book once that gave you even more detailed 'traits' and insights into yourself based on a combination of the two systems. If I remember rightly I was a piscean ox (I'm sure that was a wonderful combination...).

Helps you cover even more bases and stand an even greater chance of matching the claimed traits to yourself. :wink:

ducasi
19th-August-2005, 01:33 PM
... I was a piscean ox ... I'm a goat-goat. :really:

Some people have told me I can be stubborn... :whistle:

Ash
19th-August-2005, 03:31 PM
There is a FULL MOON tonight. In astrology it’s a powerful point.

People’s emotions can be heightened, for example. So it’s a great time to go dancing and have a party. But people also tend to get more angry. Not a good night to have an argument.

To cite a more tangible example there’s more crime on a full moon. Just ask any policemen. Or there’s more activity in a mental asylum. (That’s where luna-tic comes from.) Just ask somebody who works there.

Here’s more info on the full moon:
http://www.innerself.com/Astrology/full_moon.htm

David Bailey
19th-August-2005, 04:03 PM
Ooh, rematch!

There is a FULL MOON tonight. In astrology it’s a powerful point.

People’s emotions can be heightened, for example. So it’s a great time to go dancing and have a party. But people also tend to get more angry. Not a good night to have an argument.

To cite a more tangible example there’s more crime on a full moon.
I'm perfectly happy to posit a correlation beween a full moon and differences in behaviour. In the same way that people behave differently in nighttime versus daytime, or winter versus summer.

Weather conditions do affect people, of course. And there may well be a psychological effect of people seeing a full moon lighting up the sky. But these are environmental, cultural and psychological factors, not mystical.

For example, I like looking at women more in the summer for some reason... :blush:


(That’s where luna-tic comes from.)
Indeed, as have adjectives such as "mercurial" (Mercury), "martial" (Mars), "jovial" (Jupiter/Jove), and "saturnine" (Saturn). But so what? The "leader" of Turkmenistan (Saparmurat Niyazov) recently renamed the month of April after his late mother. The origins of names don't exactly point to the validity of a phenomenon.

(Ironically, political dissidents in Turkmenistan are generally proclaimed insane and packed off to psychiatric hospitals. Full moon or not.)

Also, I'm always up for a virtual fight... In fact, I'm actually feeling more mellow than normal today :whistle:

MartinHarper
19th-August-2005, 04:43 PM
To cite a more tangible example there’s more crime on a full moon.

Nighttime crime is a little easier if you can see where you're going.
Allegedly.

El Salsero Gringo
19th-August-2005, 05:07 PM
People’s emotions can be heightened, for example. So it’s a great time to go dancing and have a party. But people also tend to get more angry. Not a good night to have an argument.Look, just because Sol trines Luna, Pluto is in the ascendant and Mickey Donald and the gang are all on an away-day to Nottingham doesn *not* make me want to go out and mug old ladies.

However, I have to admit, my loonies-are-on-the-forum sixth sense has been going off nineteen to the dozen today, so perhaps your're right after all.

Minnie M
19th-August-2005, 05:10 PM
.........Mickey Donald and the gang are all on an away-day to Nottingham .......
FROM Nottingham (or there-about) to London (Ashtons) tonight :eek:

JoC
19th-August-2005, 06:39 PM
The "leader" of Turkmenistan (Saparmurat Niyazov) recently renamed the month of April after his late mother. *snip*
(Ironically, political dissidents in Turkmenistan are generally proclaimed insane and packed off to psychiatric hospitals. Full moon or not.)how, why and where in the wibble does all this useful information get into your head and come from, respectively? :worthy: for random knowledge (or possibly made up stuff) on apparently any subject (except quantum mechanics relating to time travel perhaps?).

El Salsero Gringo
19th-August-2005, 07:24 PM
how, why and where in the wibble does all this useful information get into your head and come from, respectively?DJ and I are both alternate facets of the real forum guru, Mr. DavidB. I think he's also Mike Ellard but shifted in time by 180 degrees of the quantum wavefunction.

JoC
19th-August-2005, 07:32 PM
DJ and I are both alternate facets of the real forum guru, Mr. DavidB. I think he's also Mike Ellard but shifted in time by 180 degrees of the quantum wavefunction.Between the four of you (or perhaps the one of you), you do seem to have everything covered. I wonder, have these 'intellectual giants' ever been seen in the same room at the same time?

El Salsero Gringo
19th-August-2005, 07:38 PM
Between the four of you (or perhaps the one of you), you do seem to have everything covered. I wonder, have these 'intellectual giants' ever been seen in the same room at the same time?Hmmm. Good question. I'm not sure - are you postulating that there's a potential "critical mass" scenario? Personally I reckon that a sufficienly strong local lepton field could prevent the inevitable singularity from becoming unstable. Professor.

Mary
19th-August-2005, 07:56 PM
Hmmm. Good question. I'm not sure - are you postulating that there's a potential "critical mass" scenario? Personally I reckon that a sufficienly strong local lepton field could prevent the inevitable singularity from becoming unstable. Professor.


Oh for goodness sake!!! :cool:

btw has anyone tried resting their pointer over the green blobs we get which shows how much rep we've accumulated? ESG I think yours may be quite accurate. :devil:

M

JoC
19th-August-2005, 08:17 PM
unstable. Professor.I think there is danger in allowing the whirtle waves from these four bodies that are one to interfere, they may be in danger of cancelling each other out, meaning they don't exist.

Before I am drawn any closer to the dangerous swirling vortex of whirtle waves of the supreme being(s), I'm going to throw myself to the latino wolves. Been nice knowing everyone...

Piglet
19th-August-2005, 08:49 PM
I'm a Dragon
I'm a snake!


Go on someone must have some time to do that.
The chinese system is very flattering it should be interesting.

If someone wants to start a poll about Chinese Horoscopes I'm sure I could find all the animals involved... I'm not technologically sussed enough to even try this poll thingymebob

Minnie M
19th-August-2005, 09:08 PM
I'm a snake!
If someone wants to start a poll about Chinese Horoscopes I'm sure I could find all the animals involved... I'm not technologically sussed enough to even try this poll thingymebob
I'm an Aries and a Monkey - and I think I am quite typical of both signs

I don't think many people know which Chinese animal they are

Piglet
19th-August-2005, 09:13 PM
I don't think many people know which Chinese animal they are

I'm pretty sure I could provide some of the dates and then people can work it out by adding on or taking away :)

Yogi_Bear
19th-August-2005, 10:02 PM
TAURUS This sign, more than any other, can show the extremes of dancing: they can be clumsy and slow or move like Fred Astaire. They’re sensuous nature makes them feel the music (& their partner!) but the resulting rhythm depends upon their ability!
seems about right...... :wink:

Ash
20th-August-2005, 12:35 AM
Weather conditions do affect people, of course. And there may well be a psychological effect of people seeing a full moon lighting up the sky. But these are environmental, cultural and psychological factors, not mystical. DavisJames
You'll always see it like that if you're left-brained…I suppose you expect things to be neatly packaged, with a little bow and a love heart? Everything doesn’t have to fit into a logical pattern…including our senses.

Everybody knows about the blind people whose hearing becomes acute…but some people can have a hard time accepting psychic powers. Even though a lot of people have ‘gut-feelings’.

I think people have trouble accepting things they can’t explain…even if the evidence is mooning them in the face. I saw Gordon Smith, a renowned medium, give a cold reading to a bereaved mother. The results were extremely impressive: he gave her precise, intimate details. But it wouldn’t have mattered in a ‘test’ because science will never accept it. Unlike governments:

The CIA, for example, spent millions on remote-viewing over many decades, with notable successes.

And in World War 2 Helen Duncun, a famous medium, was jailed by the British because she was giving away state secrets. (To cut a long story short)

There are many things that science can’t explain…the sceptics are, obviously, allowed to have an opinion, but they usually lack the knowledge or the understanding to give a balanced view. Or they define rigid parameters that rely on pure logic. That’s fine if you’re testing a drug, for example, but limited with the mystical/soul stuff.

I think science is great-but it’s become the all encompassing god. There’s no balance. And we forget about our soul at our peril: our technology might be advancing but our soul isn’t keeping up with it. So we might have tremendous power but are we wise enough to use it?

:)

El Salsero Gringo
20th-August-2005, 02:26 AM
Sorry, but more poppycock.


Even though a lot of people have ‘gut-feelings’.Many have gut-feelings, but don't remember the vast majority of times that 'gut-feelings' are just plain wrong. It's human nature to remember only the seemingly inexplicable coincidences that are bound to occur in vast void of meaningless occurences.
I think people have trouble accepting things they can’t explain…even if the evidence is mooning them in the face. I saw Gordon Smith, a renowned medium, give a cold reading to a bereaved mother.And I've seen Paul Daniels saw a woman in half and put her back together again. That doesn't make him an orthopedic surgeon.
The results were extremely impressive: he gave her precise, intimate details. But it wouldn’t have mattered in a ‘test’ because science will never accept it. Unlike governments:

The CIA, for example, spent millions on remote-viewing over many decades, with notable successes.OK. If you say so. Please elaborate on that, so I can follow it up.


And in World War 2 Helen Duncun, a famous medium, was jailed by the British because she was giving away state secrets. (To cut a long story short)And that too.

There are many things that science can’t explain…the sceptics are, obviously, allowed to have an opinion, but they usually lack the knowledge or the understanding to give a balanced view. Or they define rigid parameters that rely on pure logic. That’s fine if you’re testing a drug, for example, but limited with the mystical/soul stuff.

I think science is great-but it’s become the all encompassing god. There’s no balance. And we forget about our soul at our peril: our technology might be advancing but our soul isn’t keeping up with it. So we might have tremendous power but are we wise enough to use it?

:)You've completely mischaracterised the nature of science - deliberately, or through ignorance, I can't tell. Science seeks out phenomena that can't be explained - in order to explain and explore them. The world of physics is full of such mysteries: electricity, magnetism, nuclear energy, quantum theory - all once inexplicable, and now, if not explained then predictable, and to a degree that benefits mankind. How about the mysteries of chemistry - the apparent transmutation of one substance into another? To say that science is scared of the inexplicable is errant nonsense. The problem science has with these so-called phenomena is that they are like chasing the end of the rainbow. It all looks great from a distance but as soon as anyone starts to ask about the detail it all disappears.

Ash
20th-August-2005, 10:49 AM
Do you believe in God, Mr. Gringo? Do you have any spiritual beliefs? Or do you look at the world through a test tube?

:)

bigdjiver
20th-August-2005, 11:02 AM
...I think people have trouble accepting things they can’t explain…even if the evidence is mooning them in the face. I saw Gordon Smith, a renowned medium, give a cold reading to a bereaved mother. The results were extremely impressive: he gave her precise, intimate details. But it wouldn’t have mattered in a ‘test’ because science will never accept it. The little TV I watch tends to be of the unpredictable kind. Lately it has been the Poker programs. There are thousands of poker players that understand the odds and strategies, but the same faces keep appearing on the final tables. Their secret is their ability to "read" the other players. It could be mistaken for psychic powers, but they can explain what signals they look for. A simpler explanation for psychic reading is that, conciously or subconciously, the "medium" is probing for information. In the very few readings I have witnessed this probing behaviour was very evident.


Unlike governments:

The CIA, for example, spent millions on remote-viewing over many decades, with notable successes. If you have spent millions you are very likely to report back to your superiors that you were in some way "successful". Where you were definitely not successful you are very likely to report to your enemies that you were, so that they chase down the wrong road too, and, hopefully, spend even more in futile efforts to find unecessary countermeasures.


And in World War 2 Helen Duncun, a famous medium, was jailed by the British because she was giving away state secrets. (To cut a long story short)and Jews were detained for being possible Nazi sympathisers.


There are many things that science can’t explain…the sceptics are, obviously, allowed to have an opinion, but they usually lack the knowledge or the understanding to give a balanced view. Or they define rigid parameters that rely on pure logic. That’s fine if you’re testing a drug, for example, but limited with the mystical/soul stuff.True, you cannot use logic on the illogical, but illogical correlates strongly with untrue.


I think science is great-but it’s become the all encompassing god. There’s no balance. And we forget about our soul at our peril: our technology might be advancing but our soul isn’t keeping up with it. So we might have tremendous power but are we wise enough to use it?No. Scary, if you think about it.

David Bailey
20th-August-2005, 11:56 AM
I've let my alter-ego play for a while, but I'm back :)

You'll always see it like that if you're left-brained…I suppose you expect things to be neatly packaged, with a little bow and a love heart?

Ahhh, that sounds quite sweet really when you think about it.


Everybody knows about the blind people whose hearing becomes acute…
Blind people pay more attention to the other inputs and senses, certainly. I don't believe these senses become sharper. Except for Daredevil, of course :)


but some people can have a hard time accepting psychic powers.
See, this is the problem - you're assuming these things exist, I'm assuming they're trickery. I also have a hard time accepting fairies in the bottom of my garden (if only because they'd choke on the weeds), does that make me an Evil Scientific Unbeliever?

I've done a bit more research (OK, read a bit more Wikipedia :blush: ) on this, and I can see that, if one packaged astrology as "counselling with glamour", there may be some value in it - if it makes people happy, if it helps them in a therapeutic way, great. But I have a problem if it pretends to control our fate.

On another note...

DJ and I are both alternate facets of the real forum guru, Mr. DavidB. I think he's also Mike Ellard but shifted in time by 180 degrees of the quantum wavefunction.
It's like the Ceroc version of Moorcock's Eternal Champion really, isn't it? Hopefully our souls won't be sucked into our our black T-shirts at the end...

Ash
20th-August-2005, 12:00 PM
Helen Duncan:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/modern/oddities_modern.shtml
http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/scotgaz/people/famousfirst1075.html

Remote-Viewing
http://www.militaryremoteviewers.com/cia_remote_viewing_sri.htm#anchor251424

El Salsero Gringo
20th-August-2005, 12:04 PM
Do you believe in God, Mr. Gringo? Do you have any spiritual beliefs? Or do you look at the world through a test tube?

:)My sprituality is the spirituality that exists within the complexities of the human mind as it explores and understands the universe in which it exits; it's the spirituality of the beauty of a winter sunrise, of the daffodil, of Mahler's 5th symphony. It's a spirituality that is not diminished but enhanced a thousand-fold because behind that sunrise I see the motions of the planets, behind the daffodil I gain a glimpse of the biology and chemistry that creates something that sublime, and behind the symphony I can hear harmony, dissonance, melody and rhythm all working together to touch my emotions.

My sprituality does not depend on divine revelation; on sacred texts, or on fog-like theories that exist everywhere except at the point you look for them the hardest.

My spirituality is created everywhere that a man or woman has seen something happen and stopped to ask 'how'.

There is more spirituality in one of my test-tubes than in a whole library of astrology texts.

And my spirituality will continue to grow and strengthen long after yours is consigned to the graveyard of ideas where rests the philosopher's stone, alchemy, sun worship, human sacrifice and a thousand other primitive superstitions.

Mary
20th-August-2005, 12:05 PM
I think science is great-but it’s become the all encompassing god. There’s no balance. And we forget about our soul at our peril: our technology might be advancing but our soul isn’t keeping up with it. So we might have tremendous power but are we wise enough to use it?

:)


:yeah: :yeah:

M

bigdjiver
20th-August-2005, 01:27 PM
...Remote-Viewing
http://www.militaryremoteviewers.com/cia_remote_viewing_sri.htm#anchor251424"cats-eyes" Cunningham had a remarkable record as the pilot of a night fighter during the war. The official explanation was that he ate a lot of carrots, which improved his night vision. That "carrots" theory persists to this day. It was propogated to confuse the Germans, the actual explanation is that he was using airborne Radar.

The Russians beamed microwaves at the American embassy in Moscow. Intelligence suggested that this was designed to confuse the brains of the American diplomats. The Americans investigated the possibility, but found that it would not work. They eventually found out that this was mis-direction. The microwaves were directed at a gift brass plaque on the wall, which was acting as a passive transmitter of conversations in that room.

Governments lie.

If the USA had some methods of espionage that penetrated deep into the secret side of Russia they would want to cover it up as much as possible. "Remote viewing"? Yeah, right.

RachD
20th-August-2005, 01:53 PM
I should take up astrology.

SCORPIO: They are left-handed, or they are right-handed.
PISCES: They are male or female.
TAURUS: They all have heads.
URSUS EXCREMENTUS: Mostly in woods.


:rofl:

JoC
20th-August-2005, 02:20 PM
My spirituality...That's beautiful man. (*sniff* as a single tear rolls down her cheek)

Ash
20th-August-2005, 03:22 PM
My spirituality is created everywhere that a man or woman has seen something happen and stopped to ask 'how'. Gringo
I respect that…but what if we don’t understand something? Do we always need a ‘how’? Do we dismiss everything else? Your tone is very dogmatic. Remember, I’m not dismissing science: all I’m looking for is a balance with the intuitive side. It can give you better insights into some areas, like love, for example. (Science has tried to reduce that to chemical reactions but it’s something far greater… poets and artists will have a better insight.)


I'm assuming they're trickery. DavidJames
Have you tried using your feelings instead of your head? That’s how people get hunches/insights, for example. If you’re divorced from your intuition then you’ll never get it. That’s the crux of the problem here…you need to use your right-brain for a balanced view of things.

It’s interesting that the sceptics are usually male…

David Bailey
20th-August-2005, 03:33 PM
It’s interesting that the sceptics are usually male…
I don't think that's much of an argument - most of the argumentative people on this forum are usually male. I'm usually male, at least.

bigdjiver
20th-August-2005, 03:36 PM
…you need to use your right-brain for a balanced view of things...Or perhaps your whole brain? and, perhaps, as much of other peoples brains as you can absorb?

DavidY
20th-August-2005, 03:49 PM
I'm perfectly happy to posit a correlation beween a full moon and differences in behaviour. ~SNIP~ And there may well be a psychological effect of people seeing a full moon lighting up the sky. But these are environmental, cultural and psychological factors, not mystical.I can't resist posting this story from a few years back:

December, 2000

BTexaCT researchers discover link between making phone calls and the Lunar cycle

Researchers at BTexaCT, BT's research and technology business, have made a startling discovery: more households use the phone or dial into the Internet during the days leading to a full Moon!

This phenomenon was noticed after data from BTexaCT's Digital Living research programme showed cyclical troughs and peaks in households' calling behaviour. Scientists looking for reasons why these 29-day cycles of peaks and troughs occur eventually realised that they closely matched the phases of the Moon and that the peaks actually occurred during the seven days leading up to each full Moon.

BTexaCT's Digital Living programme comprises a panel of around 2,000 volunteers from all over the UK. The panel is constantly researched for opinions and experiences of information and communications technologies including traditional telephones, mobiles and the Internet. The resulting data helps BT develop applications and services that match customers' demands as well as providing insights into usage behaviour that can be used to plan the network and develop special offers on a range of products. The programme is now in its third year.

Stewart Davies, BTexaCT's managing director, said: "There is definitely a 29-day cycle in the number of households making calls. The call patterns are a series of peaks and troughs and we identified a trough on the first day and a peak after 29 days. Just out of curiosity, we matched the cycle against the phases of the Moon and discovered that the peaks coincided with days leading to a full Moon.

"What we haven't yet discovered is whether the link is pure coincidence or if the Moon really does affect the number of households making calls. We are working on this to check whether other factors are at work, but, at the moment, it does look as though certain phases of the Moon encourage people to pick up the phone for a chat or use the Internet, while other phases make us more taciturn. If we can prove a link, then this could well make a difference to the way that we dimension our communications network and implement marketing campaigns for call stimulation." (Sadly it's not on the BT Plc website anymore and only in Google's cache so can't link to it.)

However I agree that whatever the explanation is, it's a non-mystical one.

Interestingly they also mention internet use as well as phone calls - how easy would it be to count posts on the forum to see if there's a moon-related pattern? :whistle:

ducasi
20th-August-2005, 04:27 PM
I don't think that's much of an argument - most of the argumentative people on this forum are usually male. I'm usually male, at least. I don't think it was any sort of argument – just an observation.

I think the point that Ash is making is that some scientists believe that women as more likely to make decisions using both the logical, language, left side of the brain, and the right side of the brain, which, it is said, is more in tune with feelings and the intangible.

A female artist friend of mine regularly marvels at my logical thinking (e.g. when diagnosing a problem on her computer) – she works much more intuitively. I'm not sure who envies the other more. :)

El Salsero Gringo
20th-August-2005, 04:36 PM
I respect that…but what if we don’t understand something? Do we always need a ‘how’?We don't need to know the how - but to cop out and say 'there can be no how' is not acceptable. If there is no how then we need to keep enquiring about the 'how'.
Do we dismiss everything else? Your tone is very dogmatic. Remember, I’m not dismissing science: all I’m looking for is a balance with the intuitive side. It can give you better insights into some areas, like love, for example. (Science has tried to reduce that to chemical reactions but it’s something far greater… poets and artists will have a better insight.)You steam-roller through the essence of what I'm saying, without appreciating the point, and your language reveals your own prejudices: "reduces...greater...better". To develop an insight into how human emotions can be physically rooted in brain biochemistry doesn't diminish their significance: to me, it enhances the wonder of the link between the physical universe and the world of emotion that exists inside my own consciousness.
Have you tried using your feelings instead of your head? That’s how people get hunches/insights, for example. If you’re divorced from your intuition then you’ll never get it. That’s the crux of the problem here…you need to use your right-brain for a balanced view of things.Speaking as someone with a background in science - every day I use my intuition to solve problems. It's only people with no conception of how science works that imagine everything is done to some kind of mechanical formula from which creativity has to be banished. Scientists are among the most imaginitive people who exist. Do you imagine that Isaac Newton's great insight into the connection between the fall of the apple from the tree and the motion of the moon came by some rote method? Of course not - it was a huge flash of insight and intuition. Did Einstein - who daydreamed about what he would see if he was riding on the front of a beam of light - do so because it was the next logical step in developing the Special Theory of Relativity? Not a bit.

But in both cases those great insights were backed up by careful predictions that everyone - you and I included - can put to the test. There's no need for faith or mysticism, the theories they developed work even if you don't believe in them.
It’s interesting that the sceptics are usually male…You've not my mum, then.

David Bailey
20th-August-2005, 09:18 PM
I think the point that Ash is making is that some scientists believe that women as more likely to make decisions using both the logical, language, left side of the brain, and the right side of the brain, which, it is said, is more in tune with feelings and the intangible.
Yeah, fair enough - there's been enough evidence to at least plausibly indicate that women and men think differently at some points.

Although, Ash, if you'd made that remark as the president of Harvard, you'd be dead meat by now. Which says something about the level intellectual rigour and openness to new ideas currently enjoyed in Harvard...

Ash
20th-August-2005, 10:31 PM
your language reveals your own prejudices. Gringo
:what:? I’m trying to look at both sides: praising science but also elucidating the other side. The only prejudice I smell is from your side:

'there can be no how' is not acceptable. Gringo
Not acceptable? It sounds priggish. Tell that to the billions who have a spiritual belief.
You’ve been rude (the only one on this thread.)

And my spirituality will continue to grow and strengthen long after yours is consigned to the graveyard of ideas where rests the philosopher's stone, alchemy, sun worship, human sacrifice and a thousand other primitive superstitions. Gringo
And:

Remember, I’m not dismissing science: all I’m looking for is a balance with the intuitive side. It can give you better insights into some areas, like love, for example. (Science has tried to reduce that to chemical reactions but it’s something far greater… poets and artists will have a better insight.)Ash

You steam-roller through the essence of what I'm saying, without appreciating the point, and your language reveals your own prejudices: "reduces...greater...better". To develop an insight into how human emotions can be physically rooted in brain biochemistry doesn't diminish their significance: to me, it enhances the wonder of the link between the physical universe and the world of emotion that exists inside my own consciousness. Gringo If you read that properly I wasn’t diminishing the science…merely observing that ‘love’ (something that’s intangible) can be better explained by poets and artists. (Science can, obviously, come into its own if we need drugs, or want to explain gravity etc.) You would get a kick out of the ‘brain chemistry’-but a lot of people could be moved by a poem, or a song etc.

You need to know the ‘how’ and I don’t need that for everything. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

El Salsero Gringo
21st-August-2005, 03:58 AM
Tell that to the billions who have a spiritual belief.Happily - and loudly.
You would get a kick out of the ‘brain chemistry’-but a lot of people could be moved by a poem, or a song etc.it's not either/or. I get a double kick - from enjoying the poetry, and wondering why and how I'm enjoying it. Don't make me out to be a reductionist monster. That's part of the anti-science vocabulary you're using, and I don't subscribe to it.
You need to know the ‘how’No. I don't need to know the how. I do however need to know that any 'phenomenon' offered to me accepts as it's premise that there is a how, that the 'how' is potentially accessible and testable, and that we agree a priori that if the tests show the offered 'how' is false we look for another 'how'. It's not a lot to ask.

LMC
21st-August-2005, 01:29 PM
:worthy: :worthy: :worthy: at Ash, ESG and DJ for fascinating reading. I've only just caught up with this argument again...

And as one of the argumentative females on here, I would like to throw something else in the pot which I don't think has really been discussed (not in the detail I would be interested anyway :wink: )

And that thing is self-fulfilling prophecies.


In my admittedly limited experience, even supposedly personal horoscopes could be applied to almost any situation and the scientific basis is the astrologer's good working knowledge and experience of human nature/desires. Not the location of some bit of rock.


I find that 98% of interest for astrology (and the mystical stuff) comes from females. I think it's because they're in touch with their feminine side and have an open mind. I think males, generally, are more rigid in their thinking and need to rationalize everything. (That's why they can find it harder to talk about their emotions etc.)

Women, in general, are prone to discuss, (over :blush: )analyse and speculate about human relationships far more than men - who seem to use the Occam's Razor approach (if it looks like a duck....). The astrologer/medium/whoever has a good working knowledge of 'practical psychology'.


Don't ask me how but I know it works.


When you’re in love, for example, it’s a feeling and not a long winded essay

I would hypothesise auto-suggestion.

There's well-documented evidence that people who are generally optimistic and positive are likely to suffer less illness. Smiling, even if you don't feel like it, *does* make you feel better. You can "talk yourself" into and out of feeling in certain ways - including being or not being in love with someone.

This is why, IMO, even the 'fun' horoscopes in the papers can be "dangerous" at an individual level. Rationally, you know it's a load of old c***. But if it's been "suggested" to you that you will have an argument with a loved one, you may behave/react in a different way - which may cause the argument.

Take this scenario: single woman goes to see astrologer. It's a fairly good bet that if she's visiting an astrologer, she wants to know whether she's ever going to meet someone, sometime (even if she vociferously claims to be happy in her singleness). The astrologer obligingly tells her that she will fall in love with a short fair ugly stranger. The woman now looks at all short fair ugly strangers in a completely different light and lo and behold, ends up in a relationship with one.


Many have gut-feelings, but don't remember the vast majority of times that 'gut-feelings' are just plain wrong. It's human nature to remember only the seemingly inexplicable coincidences that are bound to occur in vast void of meaningless occurences.
:yeah:

JoC
22nd-August-2005, 12:59 AM
You can "talk yourself" into and out of feeling in certain ways - including being or not being in love with someone. Do you really believe this??? I can't imagine ever having that much control over that particular emotion. (But I'm going away to think about it some more).

LMC
22nd-August-2005, 07:10 AM
Do you really believe this??? I can't imagine ever having that much control over that particular emotion. (But I'm going away to think about it some more).
Ever given yourself a stern talking to about having a crush on someone completely inappropriate/unavailable?
Ever stayed with someone who wasn't 'right', but it seemed easier at the time?

or would that just have been me?

ducasi
22nd-August-2005, 07:20 AM
Do you really believe this??? I can't imagine ever having that much control over that particular emotion. (But I'm going away to think about it some more). Good point. I think you can sometimes talking yourself into believing that you are or are not in love with someone.

But this gets into a philosophical question I have debated with people for a number of years... Can you be sure you actually believe things, or do you just believe that you believe things?

I would argue that it is hard to actually, consciously know what you believe and feel about some things, as beliefs and feelings are not made at a conscious level, but you can observe how your feelings manifest themselves and come to a belief about them.

And now for the punch-line...

I believe that I'm an agnostic, but sometimes I'm just not sure... :wink:

David Bailey
22nd-August-2005, 09:14 AM
Do you really believe this??? I can't imagine ever having that much control over that particular emotion. (But I'm going away to think about it some more).
I think you can fool yourself into believing you're feeling something you're not really feeling - it's very easy to deceive yourself, especially about relationships.

I don't think you can actually fool yourself into really feeling that way, but you can fool yourself into believing you're really feeling that way. If that makes sense...

Deep down, you probably still know the truth, but sometimes (often) we don't want to admit it. Despite my obviously non-poetic and left-(was it left? I can't remember now)brained nature, I'm a big believer in following your gut instincts, they're usually telling you the basic truth about how you're feeling.

I'm sure there's a better way of putting this, Id / ego / surperego / whatever, but I've done enough research for a lifetime, my brain's hurting already.

Oh, and just spotted this one:

Or perhaps your whole brain? and, perhaps, as much of other peoples brains as you can absorb?
Am I the only one who thought "Day of the Dead" here?

JoC
22nd-August-2005, 01:28 PM
Ever given yourself a stern talking to about having a crush on someone completely inappropriate/unavailable?
Ever stayed with someone who wasn't 'right', but it seemed easier at the time?
I agree both of these can happen, but I wouldn't class either as being in love.

LMC
22nd-August-2005, 01:36 PM
I agree both of these can happen, but I wouldn't class either as being in love.
I agree - but as DJ said

I don't think you can actually fool yourself into really feeling that way, but you can fool yourself into believing you're really feeling that way.
And sometimes it's not until the kicking-yourself-for-being-such-a-twit aftermath that you realise the difference. Or is that just me again?

I also agree with DJ on gut instincts - or intuition if you prefer. You might not be able to define what's right/wrong - but you know that *something* is. It's whether you choose to ignore it or follow up on it.

David Bailey
22nd-August-2005, 02:38 PM
I also agree with DJ on gut instincts - or intuition if you prefer. You might not be able to define what's right/wrong - but you know that *something* is.
I also think, when it comes to relationships, you get that gut feeling very early on - usually on the first date even.

Then it's the "Oh, I'll give them a chance, maybe they'll grow on me" argument that people (being brutal, usually women) seem to use, to fool themselves.

Hold on, are we on the Singletons Sofa now? :eek:

LMC
22nd-August-2005, 02:54 PM
I also think, when it comes to relationships, you get that gut feeling very early on - usually on the first date even.
Not convinced on that one... Even if there's an initial uncertainty as you don't know each other well enough, as long as there's some 'spark', a bit of effort on both sides can turn that into a nice blazing forest fire :whistle: :devil:


Then it's the "Oh, I'll give them a chance, maybe they'll grow on me" argument that people (being brutal, usually women) seem to use, to fool themselves.
:yeah: Guilty as charged :na: - I'm up for parole in, ooooh, about a fortnight I reckon.


Hold on, are we on the Singletons Sofa now? :eek:
Astrology, Singletons Sofa, in the words of the men from the Fast Show, it's all b******s :D

Ash
24th-August-2005, 09:34 PM
Here's something to upset the sceptics :wink: and intrigue the rest. It's from an astrology website:

"One other variable worth mentioning is that Bush was elected in 2000, a year in the 20-year cycle of Tecumseh's curse, which declared that U.S. presidents elected then would not complete their terms.

In 1811, the Indian chief Tecumseh was defeated in the Battle of Tippecanoe by William Henry Harrison. Legend has it he sent Harrison word that he - and "every Great Chief chosen every 20 years thereafter [would] die" - as a reminder of the death of Tecumseh's people….United States President Harrison did die of pneumonia in 1841. And with only one exception, all American presidents elected in a year divisible by 20 since that time have also died in office.

This "curse" coincides with the astrological Jupiter/Saturn cycle, also a cycle of 20 years. The presidents who fell prey to the curse all were elected in years when Jupiter and Saturn conjoined in an earth sign. The lone president to survive the curse since 1840 has been President Reagan, whose 1980 election was preceded by Jupiter/Saturn conjoined in an air sign. When George W. Bush was elected in 2000, the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction was in an earth sign as it was with all of the presidents who did not complete their terms.

There are prayer groups in the U.S. specifically focused on protecting President Bush from the fate that befell the following presidents:

1840, William Henry Harrison—Died April 6, 1841 of pneumonia
1860, Abraham Lincoln—Assassinated April 14, 1865
1880, James Garfield—Assassinated July 2, 1881
1900, William McKinley—Assassinated September 6, 1901
1920, Warren G. Harding—Died August 2, 1923 from food poisoning
1940, Franklin Delano Roosevelt—Died April 12, 1945, stroke
1960, John F. Kennedy—Assassinated November 22, 1963
1980, Ronald Reagan—Assassination attempt on March 30, 1981. Survived to serve two full terms as president.

If there was a time that this pattern is likely to recur...from my perspective, is September/October of 2005, or Jan/Feb 2006, when Mars stations at 22°/23° Taurus, the exact degree of the 2000 Jupiter/Saturn conjunction."

JoC
24th-August-2005, 09:47 PM
Here's something to upset the sceptics :wink: and intrigue the rest. It's from an astrology website:

"One other variable worth mentioning is that Bush was elected in 2000, a year in the 20-year cycle of Tecumseh's curse, which declared that U.S. presidents elected then would not complete their terms. In 1811, the Indian chief Tecumseh was defeated in the Battle of Tippecanoe by William Henry Harrison. Legend has it he sent Harrison word that he - and "every Great Chief chosen every 20 years thereafter [would] die" - as a reminder of the death of Tecumseh's people….United States President Harrison did die of pneumonia in 1841. And with only one exception, all American presidents elected in a year divisible by 20 since that time have also died in office. This "curse" coincides with the astrological Jupiter/Saturn cycle, also a cycle of 20 years. The presidents who fell prey to the curse all were elected in years when Jupiter and Saturn conjoined in an earth sign. The lone president to survive the curse since 1840 has been President Reagan, whose 1980 election was preceded by Jupiter/Saturn conjoined in an air sign. When George W. Bush was elected in 2000, the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction was in an earth sign as it was with all of the presidents who did not complete their terms.

There are prayer groups in the U.S. specifically focused on protecting President Bush from the fate that befell the following presidents:

1840, William Henry Harrison—Died April 6, 1841 of pneumonia
1860, Abraham Lincoln—Assassinated April 14, 1865
1880, James Garfield—Assassinated July 2, 1881
1900, William McKinley—Assassinated September 6, 1901
1920, Warren G. Harding—Died August 2, 1923 from food poisoning
1940, Franklin Delano Roosevelt—Died April 12, 1945, stroke
1960, John F. Kennedy—Assassinated November 22, 1963
1980, Ronald Reagan—Assassination attempt on March 30, 1981. Survived to serve two full terms as president.

...But a more dangerous time, from my perspective, is September/October of 2005, or Jan/Feb 2006, when Mars stations at 22°/23° Taurus, the exact degree of the 2000 Jupiter/Saturn conjunction."Do we know what happened to the other presidents in between times? Be interested to find out if they were all ok until they'd left office, otherwise there are going to be cries of damn statistics and lies.

I think you're going to have to brace youself with this one Ash... (but based on earlier evidence I'd guess you can handle it!)

(Daresay you've looked into the Spear of Destiny too huh? That's an interesting one...)

David Bailey
25th-August-2005, 08:26 AM
Places, please, ladies and gentlemen...


"One other variable worth mentioning is that Bush was elected in 2000, a year in the 20-year cycle of Tecumseh's curse, which declared that U.S. presidents elected then would not complete their terms.

In 1811, the Indian chief Tecumseh was defeated in the Battle of Tippecanoe by William Henry Harrison. Legend has it he sent Harrison word that he - and "every Great Chief chosen every 20 years thereafter [would] die" - as a reminder of the death of Tecumseh's people….United States President Harrison did die of pneumonia in 1841. And with only one exception, all American presidents elected in a year divisible by 20 since that time have also died in office.

This "curse" coincides with the astrological Jupiter/Saturn cycle, also a cycle of 20 years. The presidents who fell prey to the curse all were elected in years when Jupiter and Saturn conjoined in an earth sign. The lone president to survive the curse since 1840 has been President Reagan, whose 1980 election was preceded by Jupiter/Saturn conjoined in an air sign. When George W. Bush was elected in 2000, the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction was in an earth sign as it was with all of the presidents who did not complete their terms.

OK, a few minor points:

The curse missed Madison (who was President at the time, and lived to 85.
It also missed missed James Monroe, the next person elected after Tecumseh's death (let alone any curse he could have placed while still alive)
William Henry Harrison (also sometimes credited with defeating Tecumseh) was elected in 1840, gave the longest inaugural address on record in the pouring rain without his hat and coat, and died a month later of pneumonia; how strange...
As you say, the presidents elected in 1840, 1860, 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940 and 1960 all died in office. But, so did the president elected in 1848, 1864 (Lincoln second time), 1896 (McKinley first time) and 1932, 1936 and 1944 (Roosevelt's other victories). Presidents who ultimately died in office were elected in 13 elections of the 54 so far (or more accurately of the 31 from 1840 to 1960), and seven of those thirteen elections happen to be neatly spaced. It's not a massive improbability.


I've taken these points from the thorough debunkingof this hooey (http://explorers.whyte.com/curse.htm), done by Nicholas Whyte.

He also convincingly refutes (to me) any astrological argument based on conjunctions - to quote one extract:

"But the conjunction theory just doesn't work as a convincing factor of causation, for the very good reason that in two cases of the unlucky seven, the President actually died before the conjunction took place. President William H. Harrison ... caught pneumonia and died on 4 April, nine and a half months before Saturn and Jupiter converged to kill him. And President William McKinley died on 14 September 1901, ten weeks in advance of the planetary alignment."

Finally, ignoring the whole "If curse did exist, why on earth choose such a weird one?" question, there's no 19th-century historical source for this story. None. Niente. Zip. Nada. In other words, someone made it up.

Even the urban legend itself is not consistent - sometimes it's Tecumseh, sometimes it's his half-brother Tenskwatawa.

This is maybe 20% of the arguments against this one - in other words, it's so ridiculous, arguing against it is like dynamiting fish in a barrel.

Oh, and:

There are prayer groups in the U.S. specifically focused on protecting President Bush from the fate that befell the following presidents
:rofl: There are just so many witty comebacks I could use to that one, it's hard to know where to start... But to be topical, when Pat Robertson isn't praying for the assassination of foreign leaders (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4182294.stm), he's praying for the non-assassination of his own? Good to know these religious leaders are so focussed on the violent deaths of democratically-elected presidents...

In summary, if you look for coincidences, and no nothing about probability and causation, you'll find them.

El Salsero Gringo
25th-August-2005, 08:38 AM
Places, please, ladies and gentlemen...


{big snip}


In summary, if you look for coincidences, and no nothing about probability and causation, you'll find them.
David, I really don't know how you manage to be so measured through all of this; I'd have lost my rag with that nonsense within about two sentences. Full marks to you, and double rep. were I allowed.

Storming stuff.

David Bailey
25th-August-2005, 08:51 AM
David, I really don't know how you manage to be so measured through all of this; I'd have lost my rag with that nonsense within about two sentences. Full marks to you, and double rep. were I allowed.

Storming stuff.
Ahh, you're just saying that because you want to be lead on Saturday.

But, to quote the great and wonderful Buffy:
Willow: How can you be so calm?
Oz: Long, arduous hours of practice.

I'm seriously tempted to make an argument for the mythology of Buffy being more consistent, plausible, believable and provable than astrology...

JoC
25th-August-2005, 09:43 AM
OK, a few minor points:Well that answered my question, thankyou for making the effort.


In summary, if you look for coincidences, and no nothing about probability and causation, you'll find them.Ever see that programme Heaven's Mirror, amazing what you can 'prove' by being selective with data. (I believed it of course).

Graham
25th-August-2005, 10:07 AM
I'm seriously tempted to make an argument for the mythology of Buffy being more consistent, plausible, believable and provable than astrology...
Oh, go on..... :grin:

David Bailey
25th-August-2005, 11:06 AM
Oh, go on..... :grin:
Well, you know my price... :whistle:

Ash
26th-August-2005, 06:29 PM
In summary, if you look for coincidences, and no nothing about probability and causation, you'll find them.DavidJames
You’re right if we look at this thing rationally….but will everything fit neatly into your template? The universe has many patterns that you and I don’t understand…synchronicity, for example, works for many people, even though it’s completely illogical.
I think the skeptics always make a schoolboy error when they compare ‘science’ and ‘mysticism’: it’s like trying to compare apples and oranges. They are 2 sides of the same coin but people get them mixed up, even though you need a different kind of thinking for each one. It’s like a poet trying to understand nuclear physics, for example, without changing his mode of thinking. (The skeptics can’t seem to grasp this basic concept.) For organic thought you need to be able to combine ‘logic’ and ‘intuition’.

in other words, it's so ridiculous, arguing against it is like dynamiting fish in a barrel.
Of course it is….just like arguing against UFOs, ghosts, ESP, mediumship, the after-life etc...if you’re trying to compare apples and oranges…

He also convincingly refutes (to me) any astrological argument based on conjunctions - to quote one extract:
"But the conjunction theory just doesn't work as a convincing factor of causation, for the very good reason that in two cases of the unlucky seven, the President actually died before the conjunction took place. President William H. Harrison ... caught pneumonia and died on 4 April, nine and a half months before Saturn and Jupiter converged to kill him. And President William McKinley died on 14 September 1901, ten weeks in advance of the planetary alignment."
Astrology is a diagnostic tool, rather than the final word. When people have their Saturn return, for example, they go through a big change between 28-30 years of age. (This is connected with the orbit of Saturn around the birthchart which takes about 29.5 years.) So everybody isn’t going to have big changes at the same time-but will be susceptible/prone/open to them between those ages.

So the presidents will be vulnerable around the conjunctions because they’re sensitive points.

there's no 19th-century historical source for this story. None. Niente. Zip. Nada. In other words, someone made it up.
There’s no official ‘white-man’ source…what about the Indian oral tradition? And legend can be confusing, misleading, mythic…but sometimes it can be based on truth. Whatever the merits of the story the pattern is actually consistent. The only exceptions are 1820 and 1980-and that’s when the presidents were elected around the Jupiter and Saturn conjunctions that were in a fire sign and an air sign. And the ones who died in office were elected around the conjunctions that were in earth signs. (The 1848 winner was the only other one to die in office…you can put that one down to probability.)

The 2000 winner was elected around the conjunction of an earth sign. Bush is vulnerable…

P.S. Your source, David, http://explorers.whyte.com/curse.htm, is not the most objective:

Regardless of what you believe this is a spiritual war ready to go full blown and the Creator of the heavens and the earth said to not dabble in astrology, nor with spiritualists, and the like…believe on Jesus Christ and recieve him as Lord and Savior before we get into the heat of the battle, Armegedon…

David Franklin
26th-August-2005, 06:56 PM
P.S. Your source, David, http://explorers.whyte.com/curse.htm, is not the most objective:
(quote deleted)The lines you quote are not from the site author, but an email sent to him (and clearly marked as such). I find your use of them here misleading and unjustifiable.

David Bailey
26th-August-2005, 07:42 PM
I don't need rep, people - this one's on the house.


You’re right if we look at this thing rationally….but will everything fit neatly into your template? The universe has many patterns that you and I don’t understand…synchronicity, for example, works for many people, even though it’s completely illogical.
I feel a Gus "Count to infinity" moment coming on...

"Synchronicity" is a completely subjective phenomenon, following on naturally from our search for meaning in the universe we live in - we make connections where none exist between phenomena that have no external relationship, simply because we naturally look for patterns in everything.

I personally have found some meaning to life, but I'm not going to bang on about it, and I certainly didn't find it easily, quickly, or through an "Open mind to everything" approach. I had to work at it, doing this crazy thinking thing.

The specific "Tecumseh's Curse" post referred to a phenomenon which I personally believe to be less-than-massively improbable. I dunno the exact probabilities (David F, wanna give it a try?), but certainly it's way more likely than, say, the 5% level which mathematicians would class as "unlikely".


I think the skeptics always make a schoolboy error when they compare ‘science’ and ‘mysticism’:
Great, do I get to wear a uniform?


It’s like a poet trying to understand nuclear physics, for example, without changing his mode of thinking.
If you think you can make progress in nuclear physics without imagination and, yes, poetry, you're nuts. I resent your consistent implication that people who happen to work in scientific areas lack poetry, creativity or imagination. Or indeed that people working in creative areas lack discipline, rigour and pragmatism. I feel you want to put us all into "logical and boring" or "creative and interesting" boxes, and I profoundly disagree with such categorisation.

Humans are complex and comprehensive creatures, we're capable of simultaneous rationality and poetry. Or in other words, we're smart enough to fart and chew gum at the same time.


(The skeptics can’t seem to grasp this basic concept.) For organic thought you need to be able to combine ‘logic’ and ‘intuition’.
I'd agree, but I'd also say this is an essential requirement for any progress in any field of study. Maths and logic only take you so far; I've never even implied otherwise.

Also, is it skeptic or sceptic? It's been worrying me... :whistle:


Of course it is….just like arguing against UFOs, ghosts, ESP, mediumship, the after-life etc...if you’re trying to compare apples and oranges…
Out of interest, is there any "mystical" phenomenon you don't believe in? In other words, how high / low is your belief barrier? Obviously, it's lower than mine, but I'd like to know where you draw the line and say "Nahh, that's clearly loony territory".


Astrology is a diagnostic tool, rather than the final word. When people have their Saturn return, for example, they go through a big change between 28-30 years of age. (This is connected with the orbit of Saturn around the birthchart which takes about 29.5 years.) So everybody isn’t going to have big changes at the same time-but will be susceptible/prone/open to them between those ages.
Boy, it's not exactly a major test to predict that someone in a Western culture will have many life changes towards the end of their 20's - it's when lots of people settle down, get a house, get married, have kids... It's like saying they'll have life changes when they're 18. Colour me unsurprised, and skeptical as to the infuence of Saturn in all that.


There’s no official ‘white-man’ source
No; there's no source: no white written source, no Native American oral tradition, no black source, no green source. There's no mention of it anywhere until a (white!) book published in 1934. That's why I said there's no 19th century source. And yes, 19th century sources tend to have to be written rather than remembered, it being nearly 200 years ago.

And, just in case I was ambiguous, let me put it another way:
- THERE'S NO SOURCE.


Whatever the merits of the story the pattern is actually consistent.
But if the story is bull, why even look for a pattern? Even if a pattern existed (which it doesn't), without some explanation for it you've got nothing to work on...


The 2000 winner was elected around the conjunction of an earth sign. Bush is vulnerable…
You're not going to get around me by raising my hopes up you know...


P.S. Your source, David, http://explorers.whyte.com/curse.htm, is not the most objective:
Possibly not - but that quote is, as David F said, a reply from, well, a nutter basically - the text at the top of that section saying "Postscript: On 3 May 2001, Laura Ramsey sent me an interesting email in response to this page:" was maybe a bit of a giveaway.

But because I'm nice, kind, and at one with the flow of the universe, I'll assume you missed that part of it, and this was a genuine mistake on your part.

(Another quote from The Nutter:
"My father had a prophetic dream about the assassination attempt. There was an elephant standing on a body of water and a beach to his right. The right side of the elephant was visible. On the beach were silouettes of break dancers and in the back ground that appeared to be cliffs, were actually condos. One of the guys on the beach got angry and hit the elephant so hard it put a hole in his left side. My brother interpreted it partially but full understanding came after the attempt on Reagans life."
That brightened up my day - I especially liked the break dancers...)

JoC
26th-August-2005, 07:52 PM
Also, is it skeptic or sceptic?

skeptic: US spelling of sceptic

Compact Oxford English Dictionary second edition, now where was I?

El Salsero Gringo
26th-August-2005, 08:04 PM
I have only a couple of things to say/ask after David's excellent post:

You’re right if we look at this thing rationally….but will everything fit neatly into your template? The universe has many patterns that you and I don’t understand…synchronicity, for example, works for many people, even though it’s completely illogical.Firstly let me say that the fact that we don't understand the patterns is not a bone of contention between us. But we rational folk ask that the patterns show at the least some statistical significance rather than just the 'well it works for me' argument used by snake-oil peddlars and quacks througout the ages. Does the fact that it blatantly *doesn't* work for many people - and in lots of cases - ever make you think twice about it?
I think the skeptics always make a schoolboy error when they compare ‘science’ and ‘mysticism’: it’s like trying to compare apples and oranges. They are 2 sides of the same coin but people get them mixed up, even though you need a different kind of thinking for each one. It’s like a poet trying to understand nuclear physics, for example, without changing his mode of thinking. (The skeptics can’t seem to grasp this basic concept.) For organic thought you need to be able to combine ‘logic’ and ‘intuition’.Can you go a bit further into why you claim it's two sides of a coin? David wisely makes the point (as I've tried to do in previous posts, but clearly failed) that intuition and logic are both needed in all fields. But if it's such a basic concept that thinking about the spritual needs a different kind of thinking (as opposed simply to the suspension of any kind of rational judgement) could you try to enlarge on that?

JoC
26th-August-2005, 08:36 PM
I don't need rep, people - this one's on the house.That deserves some rep surely?


I personally have found some meaning to life The forum obviously, you don't need to bang on about it...


Great, do I get to wear a uniform?Please post some photos.


I resent your consistent implication that people who happen to work in scientific areas lack poetry, creativity or imagination. Or indeed that people working in creative areas lack discipline, rigour and pragmatism. Hope you're not putting words in anyone's mouth there! For what its worth, I wholly agree that many of us are far from being categorisable (made up?) as either a 'scientist' or an 'artist' (or whatever). Many people with scientific professions are ardent art lovers or artists (in the broadest sense) and many 'arty' people are equally fascinated by science for example. People of all leanings indulge in wondering where things came from, how things can be, what forces are at work that haven't been identified as yet etc etc etc...and explore spirituality in their way.

(But you have to admit that some people's brains a little better wired for certain types of thinking though, and maybe even that some people really are a little constricted in thought patterns...)

I blabbed on about Heaven's Mirror somewhere else but that was an example of how selective use of data (in that case ancient settlements orientations in relation to constellations in year zippety doo da if I remember rightly) could 'prove' a theory. A debunker showed that if you looked at the fuller picture and didn't select just the stars that helped your theory, then the whole thing looked a bit less convincing. That said I don't think the debunker could have proved the theory was wrong either, it really just made it less probable. You could maybe say the same for the dreaded presidents curse. Looking at the other data just makes it less probable but doesn't actually prove it to be false either, does it?

About historical documents too... well they're not necessarily anything like reliable either. Just about anything written down has been potential propaganda since history began, or is an interpretation from centuries later probably written for entertainment. (Why I dropped Medieval History after a year...what you mean it might not be true?????)

The cat said for me to stop now and have some medicinal fine wine after this awful week at work.

JoC
26th-August-2005, 08:40 PM
And by the way, cancer, scorpio and pisces are all front-runners which is just what you'd expect. :D

JoC
26th-August-2005, 08:45 PM
Does the fact that it blatantly *doesn't* work for many people - and in lots of cases - ever make you think twice about it?Do you really have evidence against Ash's theories or do you just think her evidence isn't good enough?

You'll rip me to shreds but I'm put in mind of so many theorists, scientists etc who were shot down in flames, only to be proved right years later.

David Bailey
26th-August-2005, 09:10 PM
Wa-hey, come on then, you want some?



That deserves some rep surely?
Put it on the tab; at the moment I'm just trying not to do the ironing Dee's promised she'd do...


The forum obviously, you don't need to bang on about it...
See - ESG waxes poetic, everyone sheds a tear. I try to, everyone sheds a tear of laughter. Discrimination, I call it.


Hope you're not putting words in anyone's mouth there!
Maybe - but I certainly feel Ash's very strongly arguing that there's little or no room for rationality in "intuitive" areas. Obviously, I'm inferring a lot, but any consistent world-view would seem to demand the opposite apply to "non-intuitive" areas. But then, maybe I'm being too left-brained in expecting consistency. I dunno, where's that ironing gone...


(But you have to admit that some people's brains a little better wired for certain types of thinking though, and maybe even that some people really are a little constricted in thought patterns...)
Absolutely. For example, us men are 5 IQ points cleverer on average than you girlz, for example :whistle:


You could maybe say the same for the dreaded presidents curse. Looking at the other data just makes it less probable but doesn't actually prove it to be false either, does it?
To me, the main argument is not one about probability - simply because we can all argue about that, and because improbable things do indeed happen (just not as often as probable ones :) ).

The main argument is that someone made the story up, to glamourise this series of improbable events.


About historical documents too... well they're not necessarily anything like reliable either. Just about anything written down has been potential propaganda since history began, or is an interpretation from centuries later probably written for entertainment. (Why I dropped Medieval History after a year...what you mean it might not be true?????)
History is of course subject to constant re-interpretation and revisionism. But if there were a Native American curse, it seems strange that the Native Americans never told anyone about it. I'd imagine if I had a curse, which might work against my enemies, I'd damned well shout it from the rooftops.

So in the absence of any information to the contrary, one has to conclude that it just doesn't exist.

Ash
26th-August-2005, 09:26 PM
If you think you can make progress in nuclear physics without imagination and, yes, poetry, you're nuts. I resent your consistent implication that people who happen to work in scientific areas lack poetry, creativity or imagination. Or indeed that people working in creative areas lack discipline, rigour and pragmatism. I feel you want to put us all into "logical and boring" or "creative and interesting" boxes, and I profoundly disagree with such categorisation.DavidJames
I think you need to read the posts more carefully in future. Earlier on in the thread, for example, I made an observation but you thought I was making an argument-and Ducasi had to correct you. And I’ve already praised science-and said the best ones have imagination. So I obviously realize that that you need ‘logic’ and ‘imagination’ to achieve something.

What I’ve been trying to get across is that science is a bit handicapped when it comes to mystical phenomenon because it can have rigid parameters. Thinking will only take you so far when it comes to psychic stuff…you also need your feelings. That’s basically what I’m saying…I’m not trying to convert anyone-just highlighting the different approach you have to take-as I said: ‘apples and pears’.

They were discussing homeopathy on Radio 2 today. Swiss scientists have disproved homeopathy…but over 90% of calls to the station praised it. A lot of the callers went beyond the placebo effect, and included a doctor and a nurse. The bottom line: it works for a lot of people-despite the science.

So there’s no point discussing synchronicity etc. because we’re talking different languages, in many ways. (I have explored this area for over 15 years, in a discerning way, and found stuff I’ve agreed and disagreed with-and changed my mind along the way.) We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

:)

JoC
26th-August-2005, 09:44 PM
Wa-hey, come on then, you want some?My shredding of other people's work was not satisfying today for some reason so yes. I must have my quota.

Put it on the tab; at the moment I'm just trying not to do the ironing Dee's promised she'd do... It's unlikely I'll ever get that tab cleared, just so's yoo no.


See - ESG waxes poetic, everyone sheds a tear. I try to, everyone sheds a tear of laughter. Discrimination, I call it.You know that was a crocodile tear, only you really move me, truly, I'm welling up as I type and I can't discriminate having done electronic diversity training and being consequently programmed for, I mean against, discrimination.


Obviously, I'm inferring a lot Maybe you both are, but I can't help thinking that you both know very well where the other is coming from, but why not I suppose...or am I assuming that everyone sees all as I do? (by the way what is this thing ironing of which you speak?)



Absolutely. For example, us men are 5 IQ points cleverer on average than you girlz, for example :whistle: Who devised the IQ test? (No really, i'm interested and you're bound to know!)


glamouriseThere's no 'u'.


History is of course subject to constant re-interpretation and revisionism. But if there were a Native American curse, it seems strange that the Native Americans never told anyone about it. I'd imagine if I had a curse, which might work against my enemies, I'd damned well shout it from the rooftops.Well they maybe did shout it from the rooftops and tell people about it, they just didn't write it down because they didn't dig that kind of thing. But I've already said my bit on what's written down...


So in the absence of any information to the contrary, one has to conclude that it just doesn't exist.Sir, you deserve a whipping for this! Perhaps you should be considering it may exist until there is evidence that it does not. (I can't actually remember what 'it' is any more I confess, but nonetheless!) I am put in mind of a former lecturer's tale of woe as he tried to get his theories on black smokers published, years later and it's taken as read all the work he struggled to get recognised.

JoC
26th-August-2005, 09:50 PM
They were discussing homeopathy on Radio 2 today. Swiss scientists have disproved homeopathy…but over 90% of calls to the station praised it. A lot of the callers went beyond the placebo effect, and included a doctor and a nurse. The bottom line: it works for a lot of people-despite the science.
:)I understand that homepathic remedies are available for pets, now surely they can't be sceptics or susceptible to placebo drugs!? A couple of Swiss scientists, pah! Plenty of currently accepted theories have been 'disproved' at some point in time. In fact probably any theory you care to choose will have been disproved by somebody...

David Bailey
26th-August-2005, 10:15 PM
I think you need to read the posts more carefully in future.

Quite possibly, don't we all...


And I’ve already praised science-and said the best ones have imagination.
Ah, patronisation.
But, assuming consistency (!), would you then also say that the best "creatives" also have rationality and logic? Or is it just a one-way street?


They were discussing homeopathy on Radio 2 today. Swiss scientists have disproved homeopathy…
Yes, that was an interesting study - surprising to me too, as I'd thought there was some validity in homeopathy. But, as I have an open mind on these things, I can indeed be swayed by a rigorous medical study about, well, medical practices.

Also, I don't believe they ever said they'd "disproved" homeopathy - they've simply conducted a study which suggests certain things. The Lancet was indeed quite gung-ho against homeopathy, but I've lost a lot of faith in the Lancet's authority over the past few years, it's got a bit too tabloid for my tastes.

The exact title of the BBC news item (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4183916.stm) is "Homeopathy's benefit questioned". Note: questioned.

In fact, the article itself covers both areas, and there are indeed questions about it - I don't believe homeopathy has been conclusively disproved. Yet.


(I have explored this area for over 15 years, in a discerning way, and found stuff I’ve agreed and disagreed with-and changed my mind along the way.)
Well, I've explored it for about 2 weeks now, so you're ahead of me...


We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Yeah, I never imagined I'd change your mind, somehow. Or indeed answer any questions, or admit any glaring mistakes...

David Bailey
26th-August-2005, 10:27 PM
Whoops, I missed this one in all the excitement...


You know that was a crocodile tear, only you really move me, truly, I'm welling up as I type
I can feel your tears from here.


Who devised the IQ test? (No really, i'm interested and you're bound to know!)
Dunno - but there's a good argument to say the IQ test is only really effective at testing how well you do in IQ tests :)

(BTW, I was referring to this study (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183166.stm) )


There's no 'u'.
Oh, go back to America...


Sir, you deserve a whipping for this!
Ahh, this is the thing in the upstairs thread, yes? You've given up trying to clear your massive rep-debt to me, so you're trying to win my favour in other ways?


Perhaps you should be considering it may exist until there is evidence that it does not.
Well if someone says "There was a Curse", then I ask "How do you know?", and you reply (effectively) "A man down the pub told me", I'm going to exercise my right to say (poetically) "B******s".

ducasi
26th-August-2005, 10:38 PM
Who devised the IQ test? (No really, i'm interested and you're bound to know!) There are two common standardised IQ tests. They correlate closely to each other, but one gives a wider range of scores than the other. (So on one 150 is genius level, and in the other it's somewhere around 180 I think. Most newspaper reports of child geniuses use the wider scale for obvious reasons.)

The full study hasn't been published, but in my mind it says more about bias in IQ tests rather than real differences in intelligence between the sexes.

Here's a story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183166.stm) on the BBC web site about it.

There's no 'u' {in glamourise}.There is actually, but there's only one u in "glamorous". (Which could be read as a compliment.)

(Or maybe I'm speaking American??? Let me check my Shorter Oxford... Hmm... it's unclear, but the OED is very open to American spellings, actually preferring the -ize forms over -ise.)

David Franklin
26th-August-2005, 10:40 PM
Also, I don't believe they ever said they'd "disproved" homeopathy - they've simply conducted a study which suggests certain things. The Lancet was indeed quite gung-ho against homeopathy, but I've lost a lot of faith in the Lancet's authority over the past few years, it's got a bit too tabloid for my tastes.I think one problem is exactly what is meant by homeopathy; from a lot of the comments on websites I've seen, the general public has a tendancy to equate homeopathy with the entire range of alternative medicines. I don't know what homeopaths advocate these days, but I'm fairly certain that "dilute a poison down to the stage where it's unlikely a single molecure remains in the solution, and the solution will have special powers" is bunk.

The truth is, conventional medicine has made incredible progress in many areas; vaccination has made a huge difference, so have antibiotics. Yet, in the main, all the public does is complain that things aren't perfect. It's an extreme case, but look at MMR - a purported risk of maybe 1 in a million (with no statistical evidence to back it up) had people in uproar.

Conversely, the public think alternative medicines are "natural" and therefore safe. Not so - at one time I used Kava Kava; it's since been taken off the shelves as it can cause liver damage . Funnily enough, I didn't see anyone sueing those manufacturers for $30 billion dollars.

And two years ago my wife was in Singapore to judge papers on medication for a prize. Several studies were on so-called "traditional" medicines. The difference between the nominal ingredients and what was actually in there was scary - we're talking serious quantities of poisons, carcinogens etc...

So when there's so little evidence for homeopathic medicines working better than placebo, I can understand why the editors of the Lancet sometimes go a bit overboard...

As memory serves - it was a while ago now.

JoC
26th-August-2005, 10:54 PM
There is actually, but there's only one u in "glamorous". (Which could be read as a compliment.)
(Or maybe I'm speaking American???My dictionary say 'glamorize' or 'glamorise' is the correct spelling, and though my dictionary is a reasonable size (despite being compact) I'm willing to bow to someone with a bigger one.

El Salsero Gringo
26th-August-2005, 10:58 PM
Do you really have evidence against Ash's theories or do you just think her evidence isn't good enough?Of course not. The essence of 'Ash's theories' (I'm using your shorthand rather than tarring Ash with every half-baked piece of mythological nonsense that she probably wouldn't want to sign up to) is that they go to great pains to avoid ever being in the position of being tested. You can't have any evidence against a theory where, like in astrology, any serious deficiencies in it's predictive power are simply dismissed 'because it's only a diagnostic tool'.

You'll rip me to shreds but I'm put in mind of so many theorists, scientists etc who were shot down in flames, only to be proved right years later.No, you make a good point. As I said before, science is based mainly on evolution and sometimes revolution in what we believe to be 'correct' - or, equally, usefully predictive. If (using Astrology as a continuing example) a repeatable, demonstrable, objective effect on human behaviour from the position of the planets is discovered, then I will be in the forefront of those interested to discover what the mechanism for this effect is. But until anyone can show me there *is* such an effect, I have no hesitation in dismissing the idea as bunkum.

Like I said, it's only in science where you hear words to the effect of "your theory was right and mine is wrong." But the corollary of being open minded in this way is that we ask for some significant proof that what you claim as an effect is not simply random events selected to look impressive after the fact.

See - ESG waxes poetic, everyone sheds a tear. I try to, everyone sheds a tear of laughterOh, is *that* what you were trying to do!!?

El Salsero Gringo
26th-August-2005, 11:01 PM
...as I'd thought there was some validity in homeopathy.Oh David! I am *sooooo* disappointed in you ....

JoC
26th-August-2005, 11:08 PM
Dunno - but there's a good argument to say the IQ test is only really effective at testing how well you do in IQ tests :) Much like load of **** aptitude tests for jobs, fun though!


(BTW, I was referring to this study (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183166.stm) )far too many words for a lady, moi



Oh, go back to America... Ahem, i was vindicating you first instance! For this one, see your own friendly English dictionary...



Ahh, this is the thing in the upstairs thread, yes? You've given up trying to clear your massive rep-debt to me, so you're trying to win my favour in other ways? Now we get to the crux of the matter though I can't go upstairs owing to being innocent and sweet...so it'll have to stay downstairs, which may be inappropriate, i'm not sure.


Well if someone says "There was a Curse", then I ask "How do you know?", and you reply (effectively) "A man down the pub told me", I'm going to exercise my right to say (poetically) "B******s".But if someone says, well actually the majority of thingmy's that were meant to succumb to the b******s curse did... you gonna fight them to the death that it doesn't exist?

ducasi
26th-August-2005, 11:13 PM
My dictionary say 'glamorize' or 'glamorise' is the correct spelling, and though my dictionary is a reasonable size (despite being compact) I'm willing to bow to someone with a bigger one. I've got a sillily big one (ooh er!) but all it's done is confuse me.

It likes "glamorize", but also allows "glamorise", "glamourize" and "glamourise".

It says that "glamor" is a US spelling of "glamour", but only likes "glamorous".

Though it also tells me that "glamour" is of Scottish origin, so we can spell it any way we jolly well like!

But if we can understand what's been meant without great difficulty, then what does it matter?

... or in fewer words ... "shrug". :nice:

JoC
26th-August-2005, 11:39 PM
You can't have any evidence against a theory where, like in astrology, any serious deficiencies in it's predictive power are simply dismissed 'because it's only a diagnostic tool'. I suppose you can suggest ruling it out as anything of worth though... I do this regularly at work, 'yeah you did that diagnostic test but it's a load of b******s, go do something proper you bunch of bananas!'

until anyone can show me there *is* such an effect, I have no hesitation in dismissing the idea as bunkum. Flame-thrower! I guess it's just not for you...but I really baulk at the whole 'dismissal' thing. Sounds a bit 'closed'.


But the corollary of being open minded in this way is that we ask for some significant proof that what you claim as an effect is not simply random events selected to look impressive after the fact.Whatever you hypothesise and provide 'proof' of, someone will generate proof against, it doesn't mean the debunker is right. you can debunk a debunker. We don't know everything and can't explain everything yet, and can't provide proof of many things yet, but surely that doesn't mean they should be dismissed???

Oh, is *that* what you were trying to do!!?Actually no, it was a real tear, but don't tell DJ.

El Salsero Gringo
26th-August-2005, 11:58 PM
Whatever you hypothesise and provide 'proof' of, someone will generate proof againstNo, that's a misunderstanding you have about the nature of scientific proof. This is not mathematics where a proof stands (or should stand) on its own feet. In science one asks what matches best to the way the universe behaves? Which theory will best allow us to predict the outcome of events not yet occured? You can't prove that Newton's celestial mechanics is correct - because even tomorrow gravity might suddenly stop through some unexplained cause. But you can't doubt that prediction of the motion of the planets through the 'laws' and theories that Newton first described is useful in plotting tide tables, eclipses, times of sunrise, cometary appearances and so on. In other words, Newtonian mechanics is true in so far as it predicts certain events. Along comes Einstein with a new take on relative motions, and lo - a new theory that can predict more accurately some phenomena that reliance on Newtonian relativity fails - the precession of the orbit of Mercury for instance.

The misunderstanding about the nature of scientific laws and theories is that the theory is only a description of how the universe behaves. The universe knows nor cares anything for Newton, Einstein or any of the others. 'All' they did was spot simple patterns behind complex behaviour. And a theory's only 'proof' lies in an accurate description of complex behaviour past and present arrived at by reference to those simple yet exact ideas.

To use the Indian curse as an example: that's only going to impress me if you tell me *now* (or better, at the time you lay the curse) that the next 10 presidents elected in zero years will die in office, and show me (again, in advance) how that's monstrously unlikely to occur by chance. Othwise I'm just going to accuse you of trawling through centuries of historical data (British Prime Ministers with an R in their middle names? French Foreign Ministers? or what about every forty-nine thousandth person in the London S-Z telephone directory?) until you come up with something that sounds impressive enough to take the really gullible.

Mary
27th-August-2005, 12:35 AM
Errrrm. Ash is a 'he' not a 'she'.

Just thought I'd mention it...................................not that it makes any difference at all............................

M

ducasi
27th-August-2005, 12:36 AM
The universe knows nor cares anything for Newton, Einstein or any of the others. Yep, and the universe will continue whether anyone knows why or not. It does like to occasionally surprise us though. :grin:

... that's only going to impress me if you tell me *now* (or better, at the time you lay the curse) that the next 10 presidents elected in zero years will die in office, and show me (again, in advance) how that's monstrously unlikely to occur by chance. ... The morning I woke up early with the feeling that something really big had happened and I needed to turn on my TV to a news channel a.s.a.p was in advance of knowing that Diana had died. The feeling I had that morning I've never felt before or since, so I doubt it was just a coincidence. The feeling I had when I then saw the news is indescribable.

If science has any theories as to how this happened, I'd like to hear them. Otherwise, I'm forced to conclude that there are phenomena in this universe that can affect our lives, and which science hasn't begun to even recognise, never mind explain.

El Salsero Gringo
27th-August-2005, 12:49 AM
The morning I woke up early with the feeling that something really big had happened and I needed to turn on my TV to a news channel a.s.a.p was in advance of knowing that Diana had died. The feeling I had that morning I've never felt before or since, so I doubt it was just a coincidence. The feeling I had when I then saw the news is indescribable.

If science has any theories as to how this happened, I'd like to hear them. Otherwise, I'm forced to conclude that there are phenomena in this universe that can affect our lives, and which science hasn't begun to even recognise, never mind explain.I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're being monstrously witty and ironic by pointing out that while the Universe doesn't care for people of the calibre of Einstein or Newton, out of 100 million individuals who depart this planet every year the Universe forces you to wake up with a hangover the very day that Princess Di died.

Have some rep for quite the most wicked demolition of 'spirituality' on the thread so far.

ducasi
27th-August-2005, 08:57 AM
Have some rep for quite the most wicked demolition of 'spirituality' on the thread so far. Thank-you, but feel free to take it back, as I wasn't being ironic.

When I wake up with a hangover, the last thing I'll typically want to do is quickly turn on the telly.

One possible, but non-scientific, explanation for what I experienced might be global consciousness. A scientific explanation might suggest it was some sort of post-hoc auto-suggestion...

I'm normally highly sceptical of such things, but in this case I can't help but wonder. Either way, I'm keeping an open mind to the possibility that the universe might yet have a few tricks up its sleeve that science is not quite ready for.

If you're looking for links to help debunk this, here's some starting points...

The Global Consciousness Project (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-suggestion

JoC
27th-August-2005, 09:41 AM
Errrrm. Ash is a 'he' not a 'she'.

Just thought I'd mention it...................................not that it makes any difference at all............................

MIt explains the tenacity perhaps :rofl:

JoC
27th-August-2005, 10:04 AM
No, that's a misunderstanding you have about the nature of scientific proof. This is not mathematics where a proof stands (or should stand) on its own feet. In science one asks what matches best to the way the universe behaves? Which theory will best allow us to predict the outcome of events not yet occured? *snip*
The misunderstanding about the nature of scientific laws and theories is that the theory is only a description of how the universe behaves.Now has clearly come the time to sing Justin Timberlake songs at you, the only scientist in the village.

I don't disagree with the above.

(I may look from a less than pure angle.)

Now where's the sander? I have something to prove in my bathroom.

Ash
27th-August-2005, 10:12 AM
I'm keeping an open mind to the possibility that the universe might yet have a few tricks up its sleeve that science is not quite ready for. Ducasi
:yeah:

JoC
27th-August-2005, 10:20 AM
I would like to add that I levitated slightly when I was three. I know I will receive a sympathetic ear on this thread.

(and apologies about the gender thing Ash, welcome to the gender-confused forum, there are many of us in here :hug: )

Northants Girly
27th-August-2005, 10:45 AM
I would like to add that I levitated slightly when I was three.It's happened to me too . . . (seriously)

El Salsero Gringo
27th-August-2005, 11:17 AM
I'm keeping an open mind to the possibility that the universe might yet have a few tricks up its sleeve that science is not quite ready for. Ducasi:yeah:You won't find a scientist who disagrees with that, otherwise we could all pack up and go home. I just don't believe that astrology, homeopathy, Bach flower remedies, iridology, reflexology or a whole host of other rubbish is amongst those tricks.

JoC
27th-August-2005, 11:23 AM
It's happened to me too . . . (seriously) Fantastic, I'm not alone!!! How high did you go? I only rose about six inches, just above skirting board height.

LMC
27th-August-2005, 11:38 AM
You won't find a scientist who disagrees with that, otherwise we could all pack up and go home. I just don't believe that astrology, homeopathy, Bach flower remedies, iridology, reflexology or a whole host of other rubbish is amongst those tricks.
:yeah:

As it 'appens, I have some faith in acupuncture and reflexology - acupuncture certainly helped me - and I started by giving it a go in sheer desperation as a skeptic rather than as a true believer. I still don't hold any truck with the spiritual b*****ks surrounding it. But nerve cells can be up to a metre long I believe? Which to me (in my ignorance) indicates that there may be some basis for "proof" of the value of acupunture/reflexology beyond a placebo effect. This 'proof' is, however, largely circumstantial/anecdotal.

The difference between a scientific approach and faith is that the first can disprove something. None of the above can be disproved. But neither can they be proved. People's beliefs are their own. But believers can't prove that they are right and non-believers are wrong through presentation of circumstantial evidence. Which is all I've seen so far on the side of the believers - you can prove ANYTHING if you manipulate data enough (a statistician is someone who can lie with his head in an oven and his feet in a freezer and say that on the whole he feels quite normal).

You cannot isolate the effect of a planetary movement on someone's life. Other factors have to be taken into account. Therefore there is no way of scientifically testing the validity of astrology. There are too many random errors.

ducasi
27th-August-2005, 11:41 AM
You won't find a scientist who disagrees with that, otherwise we could all pack up and go home. I'm glad to hear it.

I just don't believe that astrology, homeopathy, Bach flower remedies, iridology, reflexology or a whole host of other rubbish is amongst those tricks. Now that DavidJames has confessed to a possible acceptance of homeopathy, is there any "psuedo-science" you'd like to confess to having a weakness for? :nice:

El Salsero Gringo
27th-August-2005, 11:50 AM
:yeah:

As it 'appens, I have some faith in acupuncture and reflexology - acupuncture certainly helped me - and I started by giving it a go in sheer desperation as a skeptic rather than as a true believer. I still don't hold any truck with the spiritual b*****ks surrounding it. But nerve cells can be up to a metre long I believe? Which to me (in my ignorance) indicates that there may be some basis for "proof" of the value of acupunture/reflexology beyond a placebo effect. This 'proof' is, however, largely circumstantial/anecdotal.Quite deliberately, I didn't mention acupuncture. And I hesitated when it came to reflexology. I don't see a mechanism for why, for instance, a liver complaint should show up as a lump on the sole of the foot. And given that the original basis of reflexology is nothing more than that the side of the foot has the same shape as the curve of the spine - I find it all too far fetched. As for sticking needles in - yes, I can at least imagine there is some biological action caused by this. Whether or not it's caused by interfering with lines of Qi that (allegedly) flow through the body.


{snip}

You cannot isolate the effect of a planetary movement on someone's life. Other factors have to be taken into account. Therefore there is no way of scientifically testing the validity of astrology. There are too many random errors.Can't you see the blaring contradition that stares you in the face? If there are too many random errors for it to be demonstrated, then how on earth can Astrology tell you anything that you could distinguish from random error? How can anyone argue that Astrology produces valuable data and then in the same breath say that its effect is swamped by randomness? Don't you see?

Ash
27th-August-2005, 11:51 AM
You won't find a scientist who disagrees with that, otherwise we could all pack up and go home. I just don't believe that astrology, homeopathy, Bach flower remedies, iridology, reflexology or a whole host of other rubbish is amongst those tricks. Gringo

The universe is as big as your mind...

El Salsero Gringo
27th-August-2005, 11:58 AM
I'm glad to hear it.
Now that DavidJames has confessed to a possible acceptance of homeopathy, is there any "psuedo-science" you'd like to confess to having a weakness for? :nice:Interesting that you consider an acceptance of homeopathy as a 'weakness'...

How about a multiple choice list then? I'm probably not familiar with the full panoply of "pseudo-sciences" - and I wouldn't want to condemn anything out of hand.

El Salsero Gringo
27th-August-2005, 11:59 AM
The universe is as big as your mind...Yes, and truth is in the eye of the believer. And to demand proof is to deny faith etc etc etc. Yawn.

LMC
27th-August-2005, 12:02 PM
Quite deliberately, I didn't mention acupuncture. And I hesitated when it came to reflexology. I don't see a mechanism for why, for instance, a liver complaint should show up as a lump on the sole of the foot. And given that the original basis of reflexology is nothing more than that the side of the foot has the same shape as the curve of the spine - I find it all too far fetched. As for sticking needles in - yes, I can at least imagine there is some biological action caused by this. Whether or not it's caused by interfering with lines of Qi that (allegedly) flow through the body. ?
I'm not convinced of the whole "lines of Qi" thing either - IMO, it's just the action of stimulating one end of a nerve which may get electrical / elelectrochemical? signals going. All I know is that acupuncture worked for me - doesn't mean it would work for anyone.

Can't you see the blaring contradition that stares you in the face? If there are too many random errors for it to be demonstrated, then how on earth can Astrology tell you anything that you could distinguish from random error? How can anyone argue that Astrology produces valuable data and then in the same breath say that its effect is swamped by randomness? Don't you see?
I obviously made my point very badly - although I don't remember mentioning astrological data being "valuable" anywhere - that would have been someone else I think. I'm not a scientist (unless a Level 1 OU course counts? :whistle: ) - but even I would say that astrology resembles science in exactly no way whatsoever.

El Salsero Gringo
27th-August-2005, 12:08 PM
I obviously made my point very badly - although I don't remember mentioning astrological data being "valuable" anywhere - that would have been someone else I think. I'm not a scientist (unless a Level 1 OU course counts? :whistle: ) - but even I would say that astrology resembles science in exactly no way whatsoever.No, you made your point very well. You said that Astrology couldn't be distinguished from random error. I agree. And if something in all circumstances can't be distinguished from random error - then it *is* random error.

JoC
27th-August-2005, 12:09 PM
Quite deliberately, I didn't mention acupuncture. And I hesitated when it came to reflexology. I don't see a mechanism for why, for instance, a liver complaint should show up as a lump on the sole of the foot. And given that the original basis of reflexology is nothing more than that the side of the foot has the same shape as the curve of the spine - I find it all too far fetched.Have you ever given this a go? I think the fact that a physiological effect is evident makes it one of the easier to accept therapies. There are explanations as to why and how it works out there, whether they're the right ones I don't know. I don't think it's too implausible to suppose that one part of the body, in this case the foot, could reflect (and potentially affect) what's going on in the rest of the body. It's all the same joined up body after all.

El Salsero Gringo
27th-August-2005, 12:19 PM
Have you ever given this a go? I think the fact that a physiological effect is evident makes it one of the easier to accept therapies. There are explanations as to why and how it works out there, whether they're the right ones I don't know. I don't think it's too implausible to suppose that one part of the body, in this case the foot, could reflect (and potentially affect) what's going on in the rest of the body. It's all the same joined up body after all.A few years ago my then girlfriend was training to be a reflexologist, so I had the benefit of many many pleasurable foot massages from her.

I take your point about how it's all the same body; it's not impossible that the foot should reflect the rest of the body - but how? And why in the particular way that Reflexology teaches? What if I rearranged the body map across the sole of the foot and called it Gringology? Would anyone tell me that Gringology was wrong because it was different to Reflexology? Or would the alternative therapy crowd stroke their chins meaningfully and tell me they were both right and that the universe was as big as my big toe? Or how about a diagnostic therapy based on the pattern of moles on my back - heck, why not, it's all the same joined-up body after all? (hey, I could make a fortune there...)

Ash
27th-August-2005, 12:25 PM
You won't find a scientist who disagrees with that, otherwise we could all pack up and go home. I just don't believe that astrology, homeopathy, Bach flower remedies, iridology, reflexology or a whole host of other rubbish is amongst those tricks. Gringo
Don't you love people with an open mind :wink:

El Salsero Gringo
27th-August-2005, 12:31 PM
Don't you love people with an open mind :wink:OK then, Ash, what critical or rational faculties do you use when you decide what's true and what isn't? I don't imagine for an instant that someone as intelligent as you will believe everything you're told. So is your definition of being open-minded simply an inability to deny *anything*?

JoC
27th-August-2005, 12:37 PM
I take your point about how it's all the same body; it's not impossible that the foot should reflect the rest of the body - but how? And why in the particular way that Reflexology teaches? What if I rearranged the body map across the sole of the foot and called it Gringology? Would anyone tell me that Gringology was wrong because it was different to Reflexology? Or would the alternative therapy crowd stroke their chins meaningfully and tell me they were both right and that the universe was as big as my big toe? Or how about a diagnostic therapy based on the pattern of moles on my back - heck, why not, it's all the same joined-up body after all? (hey, I could make a fortune there...)Well I suppose reflexology practitioners are reasonably satisfied that they have a plausible explanation for how their therapy works. As for the the 'alternative therapy crowd', I fear you may be doing a little tarring. I'm sure there are many practitioners who've studied their subject in quite a scientific way, and if you presented your theories on Gringology they would be questioned just as any new theory would be questioned. I daresay you could still set yourself up as a Gringology therapist and find people willing to give it a go, though you may find it tricky getting PI insurance.

I'm not sure if you're seeing the theory behind reflexology (and other 'alternative' therapies (I think complementary is a more favoured expression these days)) differently to all the 'physics' theories that you obviously are very knowledgable about. If you are viewing one set of abstract theories as 'scientific' and another set of abstract theories as 'bunkum', I don't see why.

ducasi
27th-August-2005, 12:44 PM
Interesting that you consider an acceptance of homeopathy as a 'weakness'... I should be more prepared for your habit of playing around with what people say. :devil: 'Weakness' is merely a figure of speech.

How about a multiple choice list then? I'm probably not familiar with the full panoply of "pseudo-sciences" - and I wouldn't want to condemn anything out of hand. Well some people say that acupuncture is a pseudo-science, but you've suggested you think there might be something to it... I'll let others decide whether that is a weakness or not. I don't.

For your multiple choice... start here (http://skepdic.com/)...

P.S... Like the new signature addition. :wink: I'll try my best... :whistle:

El Salsero Gringo
27th-August-2005, 12:52 PM
I'm sure there are many practitioners who've studied their subject in quite a scientific wayOH, REALLY? Not the ones I've met. They just swallow what they're told. If you'd like to point me towards any independent studies of the subject, I'd be obliged.
and if you presented your theories on Gringology they would be questioned just as any new theory would be questioned.Sadly, I don't believe that to be the case. I think the world is full of people who are happy to assume that someone else has done the questioning for them. People who prefer to believe whatever makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside, regardless of the basis for the belief. Heck, this thread's full of them.
I'm not sure if you're seeing the theory behind reflexology (and other 'alternative' therapies (I think complementary is a more favoured expression these days)) differently to all the 'physics' theories that you obviously are very knowledgable about. If you are viewing one set of abstract theories as 'scientific' and another set of abstract theories as 'bunkum', I don't see why.There is a difference between medical science, and physics. In biological sciences the only 'proof' one can come up with, often, is a statistical study of the efficiency of a therapy. Nonetheless there do still exist plausible explanations as to why a therapy - often a drug - works, and the examination of those possible mechanisms leads to further progress in our understanding of the human body. As far as I'm aware, that is not the case with anything to do with Reflexology.

Northants Girly
27th-August-2005, 12:56 PM
Fantastic, I'm not alone!!! How high did you go? I only rose about six inches, just above skirting board height.I was lying on my back in bed. I probably rose up 2-3 feet. I was worried because the window was right next to the bed. Just remember lying there looking at the curtains and trying to keep very very still. It was really scary.

JoC
27th-August-2005, 01:04 PM
People who prefer to believe whatever makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside, regardless of the basis for the belief. Heck, this thread's full them.I know they're possibly in the majority, which is why you may well make a living as a Gringologist. Please send me your business card when you do, I'm all for trying new things, and if it works, who cares how.


There is a difference between medical science, and physics.Everything comes back to physics doesn't it if you get small enough? Or is it just me?

Lucy Locket
27th-August-2005, 02:14 PM
Graham did some stats (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?p=22410#post22410) a couple of years ago on the star signs of forumites.


as of today 28th august cancer & pisces are equal tops followed by scorpio

my ideal partner should be a scorpio so where are you ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????



By the way i'm a Pisces

El Salsero Gringo
27th-August-2005, 02:28 PM
I was lying on my back in bed. I probably rose up 2-3 feet. I was worried because the window was right next to the bed. Just remember lying there looking at the curtains and trying to keep very very still. It was really scary.What happened to the bed-clothes? Did they rise up with you?

Robin
27th-August-2005, 03:11 PM
you may well make a living as a Gringologist. {snipped}
Is that something to do with Harry Potter ? :innocent:

Dazzle
27th-August-2005, 04:10 PM
SCORPIO They are the sexbombs on the dance floor! Have you noticed their intense/hypnotic stare?! Their simmering passions can make them sensual and erotic, usually in a subtle way. (They don’t do things by halves and usually commit themselves 100% to any dance that interests them.)

So spookily accurate for me if I do say so myself, ahem :waycool: ! Lory, LilyB, Zebra Woman, Donna, Northants Girly, Rachel and DianaS may disagree (If I have missed any other female forumites out I have had the pleasure of dancing with, I humbly apologise)? I am sure they will take no time in inflicting public humiliation :blush: !

JoC
27th-August-2005, 05:02 PM
It's a 5 star day today for librans, just thought you'd like to know, oh, and trust your intuition.

Sadly only a 2 star day for pisceans.

ducasi
27th-August-2005, 06:50 PM
Fantastic, I'm not alone!!! How high did you go? I only rose about six inches, just above skirting board height. Ah! That explains it (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=139286&postcount=25)!!! :worthy:

David Bailey
27th-August-2005, 07:42 PM
I'm glad to hear it.
Now that DavidJames has confessed to a possible acceptance of homeopathy, is there any "psuedo-science" you'd like to confess to having a weakness for? :nice:
:eek:

Hey, hold on a sec...

I'd prefer to say "It's not as clearly junk as astrology, so I'm keeping an open mind".

Homeopathy could very well be junk, but some methods have proven to have better-than-placebo results, so there may be something to it. Or there may not.

At the moment, I'm semi-inclined to "not", but I believe there's room for disagreement on that one, and I wouldn't have an automatic Forum Reflex to post reams about it.

Well, no more than I normally post :).

bigdjiver
27th-August-2005, 09:15 PM
The problem with investigating many phenomena is that there may be some core fact that starts it as a belief, but there are certainly all sorts of cranks and con-artists and publicity seekers and practical jokers who come in on the act. Crop circles probably are a real weather phenomenon, but I believe the vast majority are caused by practical jokers. There certainly are unidentified flying objects, but there are a huge number of practical jokers and con-men on that act too. There may be very mundane reasons for the real sightings that have nothing to do with aliens. There may be some basis in some parts of acupuncture, reflexology and homeopathy, but I believe that there is so many overstated and false claims that finding the extent of real phenomena is almost impossible. There is little common practise. Disprove one method and claim, and the other practioners will say that they do it a different way, which does work. I stick with Sturgeons law - 90% of everything is crap.

Northants Girly
27th-August-2005, 09:54 PM
What happened to the bed-clothes? Did they rise up with you?I was in a single bed at my parents house with just a single duvet over me. The duvet rose up yes - and I could feel a gap between my back and the bed where there was just air!

JoC
28th-August-2005, 02:04 PM
There may be very mundane reasons for the real sightings that have nothing to do with aliens. Government space ships...

Night Owl
28th-August-2005, 02:23 PM
Ok tell me this

if scorpio`s are supposed to be the sex bombs of the zodiac

how come there seems to be a lot of single scorpio`s about

or is it that like owning a car you just seem to notice these things more when you own or belong to that particular model

Lucy Locket
28th-August-2005, 05:08 PM
Ok tell me this

if scorpio`s are supposed to be the sex bombs of the zodiac

how come there seems to be a lot of single scorpio`s about

or is it that like owning a car you just seem to notice these things more when you own or belong to that particular model


how come i've never met a single male scorpio? are they hibernating?

Night Owl
28th-August-2005, 05:15 PM
Not this one

tho do wonder some times lol

Dazzle
28th-August-2005, 06:21 PM
if scorpio`s are supposed to be the sex bombs of the zodiac how come there seems to be a lot of single scorpio`s about?

There aren't sufficient numbers of the opposite sex that can keep pace with us! :rofl: :rofl:

David Bailey
28th-August-2005, 09:57 PM
I read an interesting article about Intelligent Design (ID) today.

Since I'm just contrary, and since I'm getting bored of the ease of Ash-Bashing, I've decided to state that I believe there's some core of truth in ID, despite the loonies (e.g. Bush) that believe in it.

Come on then, you boring right-brainers, come and have a go if you think you're hard enough...

DavidY
28th-August-2005, 10:09 PM
I read an interesting article about Intelligent Design (ID) today.

Since I'm just contrary, and since I'm getting bored of the ease of Ash-Bashing, I've decided to state that I believe there's some core of truth in ID, despite the loonies (e.g. Bush) that believe in it.Any chance of a quick precis of what Intelligent Design is?

JoC
28th-August-2005, 10:09 PM
I read an interesting article about Intelligent Design (ID) today.Can you tell those of us that've never heard of it (and have ADD) what ID is in 10 words or less please. :flower:

ducasi
28th-August-2005, 10:14 PM
Can you tell those of us that've never heard of it (and have ADD) what ID is in 10 words or less please. :flower:
That the universe and/or life on this planet had an intelligent designer, rather than it all being the random processes of evolution. (It's a way of thinking about a god-like creator without actually having to believe in any particular god.)

Sorry that's more than 10 words. :blush:

As I'm not a big fan of evolution myself, I'd be interested in seeing DJ's interesting article. Got a link?

Robin
28th-August-2005, 10:16 PM
That the universe and/or life on this planet had an intelligent designer, rather than it all being the random processes of evolution. (It's a way of thinking about a god-like creator without actually having to believe in any particular god.)

As I'm not a big fan of evolution myself, I'd be interested in seeing DJ's interesting article. Got a link?

Ermm - is this not just a rehash of dualism theory ?

ducasi
28th-August-2005, 10:19 PM
Ermm - is this not just a rehash of dualism theory ?
Not sure what dualism you mean, but don't think so.

Robin
28th-August-2005, 10:24 PM
Not sure what dualism you mean, but don't think so.

Long term debate in Psychology - especially in AI (artificial intelligence) sort of works like this. You have the reductionists who believe that everything can be explained away via physical evidence and you have the dualists who believe there is soemthing "extra" ... aka we have all the science to make an adult , yet we can't make it live - ergo point to dualists -but then reductionists will argue the cloning point.. so point to reductionists.

Gets boring after a while.

At the end of the day it really it come down to one thing. Faith.

ducasi
28th-August-2005, 10:29 PM
Long term debate in Psychology - especially in AI (artificial intelligence) sort of works like this. You have the reductionists who believe that everything can be explained away via physical evidence and you have the dualists who believe there is soemthing "extra" ... aka we have all the science to make an adult , yet we can't make it live - ergo point to dualists -but then reductionists will argue the cloning point.. so point to reductionists. Right, had a wee think over a glass of water and realised this is what you were referring to...

I think that although this argument feeds into the ID discussion, you can take the ID point of view without necessarily being a dualist.

Though perhaps the fact that I'm on the dualist side might skew my perceptions... :nice:

DavidY
28th-August-2005, 10:29 PM
That the universe and/or life on this planet had an intelligent designer, rather than it all being the random processes of evolution. (It's a way of thinking about a god-like creator without actually having to believe in any particular god.)Oh yeah - I remember now. Purple Sparkler had a relevant link in this post (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?p=136313#post136313) (although for some reason the graph about pirates has been replaced by something less tasteful!).

ducasi
28th-August-2005, 10:40 PM
Oh yeah - I remember now. Purple Sparkler had a relevant link in this post (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?p=136313#post136313) (although for some reason the graph about pirates has been replaced by something less tasteful!). Because of all the creationism as science nonsense that's going on in the US, and to a lesser extent in the UK, it can sometimes be hard to have a reasonable debate on this topic without invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters overwhelming the discussion.

El Salsero Gringo
28th-August-2005, 10:44 PM
Oh yeah - I remember now. Purple Sparkler had a relevant link in this post (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?p=136313#post136313) (although for some reason the graph about pirates has been replaced by something less tasteful!).I now see why DavidJames leans towards ID - hidden the website from PS's post is this little gem:
WHY YOU SHOULD CONVERT TO FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTERISM

* Flimsy moral standards.
* Every friday is a relgious holiday. If your work/school objects to that, demand your religious beliefs are respected and threaten to call the ACLU.
* Our heaven is WAY better. We've got a Stripper Factory AND a Beer Volcano.If David didn't write that himself, I'm sure he'd waste no time in signing up for it.

Robin
28th-August-2005, 10:52 PM
I now see why DavidJames leans towards ID - hidden the website from PS's post is this little gem:If David didn't write that himself, I'm sure he'd waste no time in signing up for it.

Why didn;t you post this , from said site , which is more relevant to the discussion ehh ? - must've been the beers and strippers ehh ?

Part of the FAQ

4. Are you an atheist/hethen/etc.?

I don't have a problem with religion. What I have a problem with is religion posing as science. Teach creationism in school, fine, but DON'T teach it in a science classroom. Science = the study of repeatable, observable, natural phenomena. Accepting a supernatural explanation is a cop-out. It's faith, NOT science.

Religious nuts: please stop emailing me about that. No I can't "repeat" evolution for you, so stop asking. But if you doubt the science that allows us to guess the age of the earth, then please stop using your computer, cell phones, and TV. The same methods of science that brought you those are the same methods we use for these evil evolution theories. Science is NOT truth, it's the search for truth, fact.

Lucy Locket
28th-August-2005, 10:59 PM
think you lot have lost the thread here, what does all this have to do with star signs v dancers?? Scrolled through some pages & apart from a few posts at the beginning it went pear shaped! Thought this was going to be a good one to read through but it's gotten terribly boring, can we stick to the thread a little more.

El Salsero Gringo
28th-August-2005, 11:11 PM
...can we stick to the thread a little more.No, sorry.

JoC
28th-August-2005, 11:19 PM
can we stick to the thread a little more.
David Y and I posted almost the same question at almost exactly the same time on page 11 and we're both pisces. Also in the pisces camp is ESG and yourself...
Piscean group hug :hug:
As it goes I would say that owing to the inherent nature of pisceans, we are all predisposed to be interested in a thread of this nature, a theory that is borne out by the percentage of piscean postings on at least the last page.

And.......watching the developing 'pattern' in the poll is pretty interesting too don't you think...? :whistle:

FirstMove
28th-August-2005, 11:25 PM
...
Piscean group hug :hug:
As it goes I would say that owing to the inherent nature of pisceans, we are all predisposed to be interested in a thread of this nature, a theory that is borne out by the percentage of piscean postings on at least the last page...


Us Pisceans are good at swiming about in a shoal. The 3sec memory is err ... what was I saying?

bigdjiver
29th-August-2005, 01:49 AM
The human race is nearing the stage where it starts to search the universe for worlds suitable to terraform and then colonise. It will do this by dispersing in all directions space ships carrying samples of the simplest and hardiest single cell organisms found on earth, and newly designed species. When they land the survivors will multiply and evolve, and in doing so terraform the planet to suit us. When they get to a certain level of intelligence they will invent radio and start broadcasting their presence. In the time it takes for those summoned by these messages to get there they will have already worked out how to manipulate genes, and further dispersed more terraforming spaceships to extend the boundaries of occupation.
In short, whilst we are continuing our task to develop and spread our "Noahs arks" in this century, the intelligent designers that were responsible for seeding this planet are on their way to claim their new home.

- or not - :devil:

Ash
29th-August-2005, 10:45 AM
There certainly are unidentified flying objects, but there are a huge number of practical jokers and con-men on that act too. There may be very mundane reasons for the real sightings that have nothing to do with aliens. BigDjiver

There are jokers, there are reasons and there are ufos...scientists and pilots have seen them, as well as astronauts:

http://www.rense.com/general9/filers32201.htm

David Bailey
29th-August-2005, 11:32 AM
That the universe and/or life on this planet had an intelligent designer, rather than it all being the random processes of evolution. (It's a way of thinking about a god-like creator without actually having to believe in any particular god.)
Reasonable attempt - although the name is particularly crap.
How about "There's more to life than just evolution" :)


As I'm not a big fan of evolution myself, I'd be interested in seeing DJ's interesting article. Got a link?

Here's the link to the Times online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,2-525-1753218,00.html) article.

The main point about the article that struck me was this quote:
"In fact, we now know that the odds against a stable replicative system establishing itself in the soup by chance are overwhelming. We absolutely do not know what started life and it remains the most staggeringly weird and improbable development."

David Bailey
29th-August-2005, 11:34 AM
think you lot have lost the thread here, what does all this have to do with star signs v dancers?? Scrolled through some pages & apart from a few posts at the beginning it went pear shaped! Thought this was going to be a good one to read through but it's gotten terribly boring, can we stick to the thread a little more.
Sorry, I've already apologised to Minnie for the massive hijacking I undertook, but I suspect it's a bit late to stop now. This is now the "general philosophy and debunking thread" I'm afraid... :blush:

Minnie M
29th-August-2005, 12:13 PM
. . . . I'm an Aries don't you know I'm right?
NOT when you are in debate with a female Aries :whistle:




Originally Posted by Lucy Locket
think you lot have lost the thread here, what does all this have to do with star signs v dancers?? Scrolled through some pages & apart from a few posts at the beginning it went pear shaped! Thought this was going to be a good one to read through but it's gotten terribly boring, can we stick to the thread a little more.


Originally Posted by DavidJames
Sorry, I've already apologised to Minnie for the massive hijacking I undertook, but I suspect it's a bit late to stop now.

:clap: I love how this thread has turn out - great reading :yeah:
BTW it is very interesting to match the star signs up with posting status/content too - need ESG to do one of his graphs on this

David Franklin
29th-August-2005, 12:25 PM
"In fact, we now know that the odds against a stable replicative system establishing itself in the soup by chance are overwhelming. We absolutely do not know what started life and it remains the most staggeringly weird and improbable development."That quote is more an assertion than an argument though.

I don't know anything about the chemistry/biology side of the argument. But I will note if you wait long enough, unlikely things will happen. As a thought experiment:

Volume of oceans: 1.4 x 10^21 litres
Drops of water in a litre: ~5000 = 5 x 10^3
Seconds in a year: 3.1 x 10^7
Years between earth formation and first bio-componds ~1 x 10^9.

So if each drop of water, each second, has a single chance to form a stable replicative system, we get a total of ~2 x 10^41 opportunities.

To put it in context, people talk about winning the lottery twice in a lifetime as unbelievably unlikely. Well, imagine how unlikely in would be to win the lottery 5 times in 5 consecutive weeks. But in 2 x 10^41 opportunities, you could expect that to happen over 300,000 times.

I don't know what the actual odds are, but then you can rationalise almost any odds by appeals to "the anthropic principle" (if you work at it!). How that fits in with philosophy, ID etc. I'm not sure.

David Bailey
29th-August-2005, 05:14 PM
I don't know anything about the chemistry/biology side of the argument. But I will note if you wait long enough, unlikely things will happen.
An associated part of the article expanded this to say that that life appeared remarkably quickly after the formation of the Earth, which was where the probability-based argument came in.


I don't know what the actual odds are, but then you can rationalise almost any odds by appeals to "the anthropic principle" (if you work at it!). How that fits in with philosophy, ID etc. I'm not sure.
"Meaning" by it's nature is of course subjective. What has meaning to me, may not have to you. Something that seems unlikely can be easily argued agains (as we have seen) by the simple statement of "Well, it happened.".

Let me state hear that my "Belief in ID" (more accuately, my disbelief that Evolution Explains The Universe) has nothing to do with any Christian beliefs I may or may not possess.

In fact, I think Christianity has missed a trick by taking on evolution as a Heretical Dogma - as the article points out, evolution certainly does not invalidate God, it only invalidates the literal truth of "The Earth was created in 7 days" and associated stories. To me, that's not such a big deal.

I certainly don't follow the same path as the religious loonies who want to teach creationism by the back door in US schools. But I also don't follow the same path as those who insist evolution can explain all human behaviour, including altruism, aesthetics, care for the sick and infirm, and the popularity of cross-body leads in salsa classes. :what:

So I'm somewhere in the middle I guess... :innocent:

Ash
29th-August-2005, 07:22 PM
Astrology article: How Could It Possibly Work?

http://planetwaves.net/astrology/horoscopes.html

David Bailey
29th-August-2005, 07:37 PM
Astrology article: How Could It Possibly Work?

http://planetwaves.net/astrology/horoscopes.html
Well, anyone comparing the astrologer's belief in astroglogy to the carpenter's belief in his hammer is clearly someone we should take seriously.

Even you would presumably admit that there is some controversy over the validity of astrology - this guy just starts from the presumption it works, thus avoiding the tedious task of justifying himself. Nice one.

Anyway, sorry, we've already done this, I want ID controversy now. Come on someone, nice big open goal, you can't all be out enjoying yourselves dancing?

:innocent:

bigdjiver
29th-August-2005, 08:56 PM
:devil: The moon has one face pointing towards the earth. If the Earth was once like that, always pointing one face at the sun then its day could be almost infinite. A lot can be done in seven days like that. There have been theories that the moon was split off from the earth by a cosmic collision, which could have resulted in the rotational state we have now.:devil:

- or not -

Lucy Locket
29th-August-2005, 09:15 PM
David Y and I posted almost the same question at almost exactly the same time on page 11 and we're both pisces. Also in the pisces camp is ESG and yourself...
Piscean group hug :hug:
As it goes I would say that owing to the inherent nature of pisceans, we are all predisposed to be interested in a thread of this nature, a theory that is borne out by the percentage of piscean postings on at least the last page.

And.......watching the developing 'pattern' in the poll is pretty interesting too don't you think...? :whistle:

:hug: :hug:

Ash
29th-August-2005, 10:30 PM
Anyway, sorry, we've already done this...DavidJames

We have, for you. Your point of view is clear...but there are people who are intrigued/interested in astrology.

:)

ducasi
29th-August-2005, 10:53 PM
We have, for you. Your point of view is clear...but there are people who are intrigued/interested in astrology. Ash, it's a common enough thing to get guides that tell you what signs you should be romantically compatible with...

Does this work for dance partners? Can you give us an indication of who we might be most compatible with just for dancing?

Cheers!

El Salsero Gringo
29th-August-2005, 11:53 PM
Astrology article: How Could It Possibly Work?

http://planetwaves.net/astrology/horoscopes.htmlThat article is worse than just nonsense; it's deliberately obfuscatory:
Most horoscope columns, including my own, are based on data. This data comes from astrological charts and the planetary ephemeris. All horoscope columns are also interpretive; that is, there's no definitive explanation for an astrological aspect, but rather, each astrologer sees different meaning in the data, expresses it their own way, and puts it to work for their readers.

What most people don't recognize that any statement made from data is interpretive, particularly when we state what any data means. The weather report is a great example; it's an interpretation, and it's speculative; we watch the weather and hope for the best (no, I don't believe in the weather report). When medical science says a drug is safe, that's an interpretation; the word "safe" has a specific meaning, with conditions that we usually don't know. In this respect, astrology is no different than any other kind of statistical interpretation.It draws parallels between interpreting weather data into weather reports, and statistics about drug tests into drug safety reports - with turning planetary data into predictions about human behaviour. That's dishonest; the former are interpretive, the latter are fictional.

David Bailey
30th-August-2005, 08:12 AM
We have, for you. Your point of view is clear...but there are people who are intrigued/interested in astrology.

:)
Looks like the great ID debate of 2005 dies a death... :tears:

OK, seeing as we're getting back into this, I'd like to re-ask the question (which I and ESG have previously asked): What's your disbelief level?

In other words, is there anything along the whole gamut of mystical, magical and parapsychological areas that you think "Nope, that's just really dumb"? Or are you willing to accept pretty much everything in all of these areas?

Secondly, how can you reconcile the different astrological traditions: Western Chinese, Vedic, Mesoamerican, and Kabbalistic? Surely if astrology is a universal tool, rather than a faith-based belief system, it should follow rules which are applicable everywhere, and not just in particular cultures?

El Salsero Gringo
30th-August-2005, 08:57 AM
Looks like the great ID debate of 2005 dies a death... :tears:

OK, seeing as we're getting back into this, I'd like to re-ask the question (which I and ESG have previously asked): What's your disbelief level?

In other words, is there anything along the whole gamut of mystical, magical and parapsychological areas that you think "Nope, that's just really dumb"? Or are you willing to accept pretty much everything in all of these areas?

Secondly, how can you reconcile the different astrological traditions: Western Chinese, Vedic, Mesoamerican, and Kabbalistic? Surely if astrology is a universal tool, rather than a faith-based belief system, it should follow rules which are applicable everywhere, and not just in particular cultures?It's also very Earth-centric; what would the chart for someone born on Mars be like? Mars itself wouldn't appear in the chart, but what would it mean if, for instance, the Earth was in Saggitarius?

And how about the possibility of a human born on a space-ship on it's way to another solar system, with no sun or plants nearby? How would you find an astrological chart for them?

David Franklin
30th-August-2005, 09:10 AM
Looks like the great ID debate of 2005 dies a death... :tears: Well, (as you're into being all 'scientific' and stuff) - did you want to advance a "ID hypothesis"?

JoC
30th-August-2005, 10:18 AM
And how about the possibility of a human born on a space-ship on it's way to another solar system, with no sun or plants nearby? How would you find an astrological chart for them?They automatically become pisces.

David Bailey
30th-August-2005, 10:45 AM
And how about the possibility of a human born on a space-ship on it's way to another solar system, with no sun or plants nearby?
They'd have to grow up as carnivores instead? :innocent:

JoC
30th-August-2005, 11:02 AM
Yeah come to think of it, did I miss something? Where do the plants fit in with determining your star sign?

David Bailey
30th-August-2005, 04:08 PM
I've just been reading the excellent "Religious Beliefs" thread, and I'm going to shamelessly steal Barry Shnikov's list of loony beliefs (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=68358&postcount=177).

Ash, which (if any) these do you not believe in:

crystals
auras
kirlian photography
zero-point energy
magnet therapy
telekinesis
mediums
psychic healers
reflexology
homeopathy
remote viewing
ghosts
bioenergy
scientology
NLP (actually, I think there's something to that one...)
breatharians
telepaths
reincarnation
clairvoyants
dowsing
bioharmonics
psychic surgeons
numerology


I echo the the quote from Barry:


...even the most die-hard 'new-ager' must look at that list and wonder - "surely, they can't all be true"? But they all rely on the same basic formula (cue Twilight Zone music) "we don't kno-ow everything about how the mi-ind works and the universe is filled with energy which flows through all things.." (or maybe for some of you it might make more sense if you read "the universe filled with energy is, which all things flows through it does, ye-es")

To which I can only add, :clap: @ Barry

Ash
30th-August-2005, 06:25 PM
It draws parallels between interpreting weather data into weather reports, and statistics about drug tests into drug safety reports - with turning planetary data into predictions about human behaviour. That's dishonest; the former are interpretive, the latter are fictional. ESG
That’s fine if you think astrology is bunkum. Otherwise he’s accurate. The planetary data is interpretive and different astrologers will give you different angles…that’s why astrology is a diagnostic tool-and not the final word. We have free will and it’s up to us what we make of our life. The astrologer will merely give you a ‘weather report’, based upon his interpretation.

Secondly, how can you reconcile the different astrological traditions: Western Chinese, Vedic, Mesoamerican, and Kabbalistic? Surely if astrology is a universal tool, rather than a faith-based belief system, it should follow rules which are applicable everywhere, and not just in particular cultures? DavidJames
That’s a logical assumption.

People around the world can look at the stars in different ways. The core belief is there (the stars mean something) but they interpret them in different ways. This is a bit like the weather: you can interpret the patterns using hi-tech equipment, animals, nature…it depends on your culture etc.

Astrology isn’t a clear cut thing. It has many traditions and planets are still being discovered. It’s an organic, developing field. (Just like some other areas.)

It's also very Earth-centric; what would the chart for someone born on Mars be like? Mars itself wouldn't appear in the chart, but what would it mean if, for instance, the Earth was in Saggitarius?

And how about the possibility of a human born on a space-ship on it's way to another solar system, with no sun or plants nearby? How would you find an astrological chart for them?
I don’t know. Astrology would evolve/mutate? Or you would have to use another ‘mystical’ tool…

In other words, is there anything along the whole gamut of mystical, magical and parapsychological areas that you think "Nope, that's just really dumb"? Or are you willing to accept pretty much everything in all of these areas? DavidJames
I’m not willing to accept everything in this area. I used to be sceptical about numerology, for example, until I found it worked. I’m not going to comment on Kabbala, for example, until I’ve studied it. But I draw the line at Scientology: I think it’s a cult. (I don't know what some of the things are on your list, BTW)

The ‘mystical’ area is enormous and I don’t accept everything at face value. I merely keep an open mind, exploring and discovering...

JoC
30th-August-2005, 06:30 PM
(I don't know what some of the things are on your list, BTW)Did you know what NLP is? (Acronymists strike again...)

ducasi
30th-August-2005, 06:49 PM
Did you know what NLP is? (Acronymists strike again...) NLP (Neuro-linguistic programming) was the only one in the list I think I would actually have much time for... Maybe reflexology... Numerology, from what I know of it, is total rubbish.

Mary
30th-August-2005, 07:00 PM
Neuro-Linguistic Programming is a very useful and powerful tool that we all can use - just wish I was any good at it, or even remember how to apply it.

Some people use it without even realising it, as they have grown up learning how to use language and body language effectively.

I believe it's a method used by experts in talking people down from suicide attempts.

M

DavidY
30th-August-2005, 07:02 PM
NLP (Neuro-linguistic programming)NLP is actually on the list of approved training courses we can take at work so someone somewhere must be convinced by it.
dowsingI remember many years ago seeing a TV science programme (I think it was a fairly respectable one) that tried to prove whether or not there was something in dowsing. I think they got better results than you would by chance.

They then gave the dowser some sort of suit of metal (like tin foil) to wear (the theory being this would cut out magnetic/electrical fields) and he lost his dowsing abilities.
breatharians, bioharmonics
What are these?

Ash
30th-August-2005, 07:04 PM
Ash, it's a common enough thing to get guides that tell you what signs you should be romantically compatible with...

Does this work for dance partners? Can you give us an indication of who we might be most compatible with just for dancing? Ducasi

The same principle applies to dancing: it’s a ‘partnership’.

Books are usually very general: fire signs (Aries, Leo & Sagittarius) go with air signs (Gemini, Libra & Aquarius); earth signs (Taurus, Virgo & Capricorn) go with water signs (Cancer, Scorpio, & Pisces)

They are simple rules of thumb which can work, up to a point. (My first showcase partner was a Libra, and the second a Leo. I'm an Aquarius)

But you would need to look deeper…and see what the rest of the planets are doing. (In your chart and your partner’s.)

El Salsero Gringo
30th-August-2005, 07:07 PM
That’s fine if you think astrology is bunkum. Otherwise he’s accurate. The planetary data is interpretive and different astrologers will give you different angles…that’s why astrology is a diagnostic tool-and not the final word. We have free will and it’s up to us what we make of our life. The astrologer will merely give you a ‘weather report’, based upon his interpretation.It would be a good analogy if weather reports were based on tea leaf residues, and drug safety reports were based on the patterns a beetle makes on a piece of paper. Until you show that the planets influence people's behaviour then interpreting planetary charts in that way is still fiction.
I’m not willing to accept everything in this area. I used to be sceptical about numerology, for example, until I found it worked. I’m not going to comment on Kabbala, for example, until I’ve studied it. But I draw the line at Scientology: I think it’s a cult. (I don't know what some of the things are on your list, BTW)

The ‘mystical’ area is enormous and I don’t accept everything at face value. I merely keep an open mind, exploring and discovering...But in general it would be true to say that if it works for you then it must be true?

El Salsero Gringo
30th-August-2005, 07:10 PM
Neuro-Linguistic Programming is a very useful and powerful tool that we all can use - just wish I was any good at it, or even remember how to apply it.

Some people use it without even realising it, as they have grown up learning how to use language and body language effectively.
MAgreed. There's nothing mystical about using language (verbal and physical) to influence people's behaviour. NLP inlcudes a whole lot of techniques for doing that more effectively.

LMC
30th-August-2005, 07:28 PM
Agreed. There's nothing mystical about using language (verbal and physical) to influence people's behaviour. NLP inlcudes a whole lot of techniques for doing that more effectively.
:yeah:

A lot of it is just plain common sense, although the jargon can be offputting. I'm a bit of a fan of transactional analysis as well (which was one of the many inspirations for the development of NLP).

Clive Long
30th-August-2005, 07:30 PM
OK.

There's no way I am as good as DavidJames or ESG at this (you see where I am coming from Ash) - but try this.

I am a High Priest of the Boonerian cult. I have a pair of magic spectacles called Urim. The spectacles were found by me in a cave to which Booner (an Egyptian guide) had led me in a vision. This was not your ordinary vision - no GPS co-ordinates - but one with snakes, cracks in the concrete and synchronous cloud formations that I had to interpret after many years of studying books that I bought for 9 quid a throw from the Boonerian Publishing Corporation.

When wearing these spectacles and gazing at the sun I see mysterious shapes that tell me of ominous things to come. They tell me people will die and people will be born. They tell me of wars and famine. Others have tried the spectacles but their cynicism prevents them from seeing the inner flow revealed to me.

There are many writings that attest to the truth revealed to me.

Who are you to call me a fraud, a deluded fool or a charlatan?

By the way, the world's going to end on October 13th. Can't quite make out which year yet.

Clive :flower:

Clive Long
30th-August-2005, 07:36 PM
<< snip >>
I am a High Priest of the Boonerian cult. I have a pair of magic spectacles

wibble wibble,

Who are you to call me a fraud, a deluded fool or a charlatan?

By the way, the world's going to end on October 13th. Can't quite make out which year yet.

Clive :flower:
In case you don't get my point - the purpose of the above is not to ridicule Ash - she is far too clever and articulate for me to be able to do that - it is a challenge for her to argue why the above is errant nonsense.

Then we can apply the same arguments and analysis to the Shnikov list :worthy: one by one.

Clive

David Bailey
30th-August-2005, 07:41 PM
That’s a logical assumption.
:rofl: I thought you were agreeing with me about the inconsistency at first, then I remembered your feelings about logic and realised you may have meant that statement in a different way...


People around the world can look at the stars in different ways. The core belief is there (the stars mean something) but they interpret them in different ways. This is a bit like the weather: you can interpret the patterns using hi-tech equipment, animals, nature…it depends on your culture etc.
:confused: I'm pretty sure the weather-prediction methods most organisations use are fairly standard. And that's a good thing - unless you're suggesting, for example, that global-warming predictions or tsunami-detection work should be left to individual cultures to work out depending on their own cultural beliefs...


Astrology isn’t a clear cut thing.
I'll go along with that :whistle:


It has many traditions and planets are still being discovered.
So how do you know that your traditions are better than, say, Chinese traditions? Would you recommend a Chinese person consult a Chinese astrologer? What about a Chinese person living in the UK? What about a person with one English and one Chinese parent? What about someone born in the UK to two Chinese parents?

In other words, what makes you think you're right compared to 1.2 billion Chinese people?


But I draw the line at Scientology: I think it’s a cult.
I agree, but hey, don't tell the Jive Aces :)


(I don't know what some of the things are on your list, BTW)
Me neither, but I'm willing to have faith in The Great Barry... except where NLP is concerned, he clearly lost the plot a bit there. :whistle:

David Bailey
30th-August-2005, 07:53 PM
By the way, the world's going to end on October 13th. Can't quite make out which year yet.
:eek: That's the day before my birthday!

YOU MUST BE PSYCHIC!!

(Can I borrow the specs? I'd love to know the winner on the 3.30...)

Clive Long
30th-August-2005, 07:59 PM
By the way, the world's going to end on October 13th. Can't quite make out which year yet.

:eek: That's the day before my birthday!

YOU MUST BE PSYCHIC!!
Something to look forward to then!

And you won't have to take back those ghastly ties so kindly meant.

Glad to be of service.

CRL (High-Priest and Sex God 3rd Class)

El Salsero Gringo
30th-August-2005, 08:08 PM
In other words, what makes you think you're right compared to 1.2 billion Chinese people?Let me see if I've understood this right. Ash would probably say (forgive me if this is wrong) that he's not worried about being right compared to 1.2 billion Chinese people. Astrology tells him what he considers to be useful information; the fact that it's useful is its own justification; and all the other questions about it that can't really be answered are artefacts that exist only in the minds of people like DJ and I.

If you're the sort of person to whom inconsistencies and contradictions aren't anathema, and you get some kind of benefit from it, then it's probably very wise to believe in Astrology. Why wouldn't you?

Clive Long
30th-August-2005, 08:19 PM
In case you don't get my point ... etc.

Clive
I did not know Ash is a guy.

Apology for writing her/she in place of him/he. No offence meant.

Clive

David Bailey
30th-August-2005, 08:28 PM
If you're the sort of person to whom inconsistencies and contradictions aren't anathema, and you get some kind of benefit from it, then it's probably very wise to believe in Astrology. Why wouldn't you?
You know, I'd have respected a view of astrology that viewed it as "therapy with bells on", and where the only result that mattered was client satisfaction, or even helping a client to make decisions.

What gets my (and I suspect other people's) goat is the idea that astrology is a predictive or diagnostic tool, used by itself.

El Salsero Gringo
30th-August-2005, 08:36 PM
You know, I'd have respected a view of astrology that viewed it as "therapy with bells on", and where the only result that mattered was client satisfaction, or even helping a client to make decisions.I've heard this justification behind Tarot - that it's basically a souped-up version of the 'executive decision maker' - the one that has yes/no/maybe/roll again as it's outcomes. It doesn't really matter what the answer is, the value lies in the way it makes you think harder about the meaning of the question.


What gets my (and I suspect other people's) goat is the idea that astrology is a predictive or diagnostic tool, used by itself.We're the ones who find that a problem, it's up to us to go and find the answer!

Ash
30th-August-2005, 09:17 PM
I thought you were agreeing with me about the inconsistency at first, then I remembered your feelings about logic and realised you may have meant that statement in a different way...DavidJames
I’m not implying anything :) I thought you were making a fair point.

So how do you know that your traditions are better than, say, Chinese traditions? Would you recommend a Chinese person consult a Chinese astrologer? What about a Chinese person living in the UK? What about a person with one English and one Chinese parent? What about someone born in the UK to two Chinese parents?
It’s not a question of what’s better…it’s a question of what the client is drawn towards. And what they’re looking for.

Astrology can help people make choices, show them the lay of the land, advise them…the worst thing an astrologer could do is tell them what to do. The power is with the client.

I'm pretty sure the weather-prediction methods most organisations use are fairly standard. And that's a good thing - unless you're suggesting, for example, that global-warming predictions or tsunami-detection work should be left to individual cultures to work out depending on their own cultural beliefs...
Don’t forget that some primitive cultures use other methods. The tribesmen of the Nicobar Islands moved to higher ground, using their 'primitive' methods, before the tsunami struck:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6786476/

David Franklin
30th-August-2005, 09:27 PM
Don’t forget that some primitive cultures use other methods. The tribesmen of the Nicobar Islands moved to higher ground, using their 'primitive' methods, before the tsunami struck:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6786476/
Though actually, most cultures with passing experience with tsunamis have the knowledge that "when the sea goes out unusually far, it is time to get to higher ground, NOT to go down close and have a look". (I only know this because of the slightly unsavoury post-tsunami postings of US citizens along the lines of "stupid foreigners - Hawaii has regular drills about what to do under those conditions". Apparently similar local knowledge is important in the region of the great lakes).

ducasi
30th-August-2005, 11:16 PM
By the way, the world's going to end on October 13th. Can't quite make out which year yet. 2039, the day after I die. (At least, according to this web site (http://community.sparknotes.com/death/), last time I checked.) And who can blame the world for wanting to end when I'm no longer here? :waycool:

Of course, after the 19th of January, 2038, life may no longer be worth living (if you are a techy geek like me. :wink:)

Clive Long
30th-August-2005, 11:41 PM
<< hopefully not snipping unfairly >>
It’s not a question of what’s better…it’s a question of what the client is drawn towards. And what they’re looking for.

Ok. I'm drawn towards and looking for a Porsche and a 25-year old, size 8 in a chinese silk dress.
Could you arrange that?

and would you take the snake oil challenge (http://cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?p=146780) to argue against me?


Astrology can help people make choices, show them the lay of the land, advise them…the worst thing an astrologer could do is tell them what to do. The power is with the client.

But I can take advice on the lie of the land from a financial adviser, my Mum (wise woman!), Mr. Dardis my maths teacher, the Green Cross Code Man, or CoCo the Clown. And they might all be wrong. Why should I listen to you? And give you my money for the advice?

I'm sure you are a sincere and an extremely decent person whom I would admire for how he treats other people. I might like your company and value you as a friend. Really, really, I am not ridiculing you, I am trying to understand why you think the way you do. I just think you are misguided and gullible.

Clive

bigdjiver
31st-August-2005, 01:01 AM
Though actually, most cultures with passing experience with tsunamis have the knowledge that "when the sea goes out unusually far, it is time to get to higher ground, NOT to go down close and have a look". (I only know this because of the slightly unsavoury post-tsunami postings of US citizens along the lines of "stupid foreigners - Hawaii has regular drills about what to do under those conditions". Apparently similar local knowledge is important in the region of the great lakes).The water does not always go out before it rushes in. The Tsunami was caused by a submarine landslide, causing a positive wave in one direction, and a negative wave (the sea going out) in the other. The negative wave is followed by a positive recoil. Their lore could be as simple as head for the high ground after any earthquake. I felt a fairly minor Welsh earthquake as far away as Rushden, no mystic sixth sense required.

Clive Long
1st-September-2005, 08:59 PM
<< snip >>
and would you take the snake oil challenge (http://cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?p=146780) to argue against me?

<< snip >>

I'm sure you are a sincere and an extremely decent person whom I would admire for how he treats other people. I might like your company and value you as a friend. Really, really, I am not ridiculing you, I am trying to understand why you think the way you do. I just think you are misguided and gullible.

Clive
This seems a bit quiet so I'll stoke it one further time. I know people are bored seeing my name pop up.

The other challenge still stands and I'll add another.

As I understand it Astrology claims to have some predictive power.

I was born at 10:30 on Monday 11th December 1961 (nooo... it can't be true).
I weighed 8lb 2oz.
I was born in Chiswick maternity hospital West London.
Need anymore info?

Let's not worry about the future.

Ash, I'll pay you a fiver for each specific and accurate personal event that has happened to me that you determine from an astrological chart and relate on the forum.

Clive

Ash
2nd-September-2005, 12:01 AM
As I understand it Astrology claims to have some predictive power.

Astrology doesn't have predictive power...it can give you a 'weather report'. Then it's up to you what 'clothes' you wear.

We all have fee will. It's up to us what we make of our prevailing conditions. An astrologer (or any other 'psychic') can only advise/counsel you.

:)

Ash
3rd-September-2005, 11:15 AM
I’m curious…I want to find out what the sceptics think of the areas which have ‘respectable’ links:

1.Palmistry Is it all a load of rubbish? Doctors use the nails for medical diagnosis, for example. Midwives check the palms of babies for signs of Down’s syndrome.

2.Feng Shui It’s used extensively in the Far East. And by western companies like Virgin Airways, British Airways, Microsoft. Are they wasting their money?

3.UFOs Pilots, scientists and astronauts have seen them. Are they all ‘nut-jobs’?
http://www.rense.com/general9/filers32201.htm

4.Weather Control Are we in the realms of science-fiction?
http://rense.com/general67/weather.htm
http://rense.com/general67/someth.htm
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/6/HAARP.htm

David Bailey
3rd-September-2005, 12:55 PM
I’m curious…I want to find out what the sceptics think of the areas which have ‘respectable’ links:
That'll be me then...


1.Palmistry Is it all a load of rubbish? Doctors use the nails for medical diagnosis, for example. Midwives check the palms of babies for signs of Down’s syndrome.
There's a difference between examining physical attributes to make a medical diagnosis, and telling someone their romantic fate by the shape of their love line. So, yes, cheiromancy is a load of rubbish.


[B]2.Feng Shui It’s used extensively in the Far East.
Depends whether you're referring to Eastern Feng Shui or the recent Western revival. If the former, I'm not adverse to admitting that the idea of living in tune with nature rather than fighing it seems sensible, and that philosophy can make people happier and more contented. If the latter, then I'd have to say it's just glamourous interior decorating.


And by western companies like Virgin Airways, British Airways, Microsoft. Are they wasting their money?
Well, that's called PR for you - marketing can sometimes be defined as a Waste Of Money, indeed.


3.UFOs Pilots, scientists and astronauts have seen them. Are they all ‘nut-jobs’?
http://www.rense.com/general9/filers32201.htm
Yeah, well the "U" should maybe give a slight clue - they're Unidentified. We don't know what they are; could be all mistakes / spots on windscreen / weather balloons / hoaxes / hallucinations. Or they could be ET. But I'm wondering why an advanced civilisation capable of star travel would be obsessed with abducting hick Americans. Nothing's impossible, but it seems a little weird.


4.Weather Control Are we in the realms of science-fiction?
No - in fact we're altering weather patterns already with greenhouse gasses and large urban conurbations.

Beneficial, controllable and predictable weather control seems unlikely, at least in the short term, despite the loony conspiracy nuts quoted in your links.

If nothing else, if the US Government could control weather to any degree, one wonders why they didn't do something about Hurricane Katrina...

WittyBird
3rd-September-2005, 01:01 PM
That'll be me then...

If nothing else, if the US Government could control weather to any degree, one wonders why they didn't do something about Hurricane Katrina...

that is the most amusing thing i have read in the last 10 mins, shoot the person that said you didn't have a sense of humour :rofl:

LMC
3rd-September-2005, 03:35 PM
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/6/HAARP.htm
Being contrary 'n' all, I decided to look at these links in reverse order.

And I only got as far as that one ^^^, and I'm :rofl: so hard that I can barely type... guys, you have to read this one, it's CLASSIC - here's a taster:

".... Weather machines are fine if used wisely, but this machine is also able to effect [ sic ] a population's brainwaves over whole continents (site's red) by bouncing its powerful and finely tuned beam down on the unsuspecting masses from a reflective piece of atmosphere that the machine first creates. For sure we know that irritability and lethargy can be created, and by using the right kind of pulse it can knock out all public communications networks. It also can be used to scan the Earth to considerable depth, so secret underground rooms will be impossible to hide anywhere. "

Sorry, I haven't really got time to look at the others (I agree with DJ anyway), because I'm now off to give myself some more laughs - I *adore* conspiracy theories, thank you Ash :clap:

El Salsero Gringo
3rd-September-2005, 04:01 PM
I guess I'm a full-on sceptic - so here are the votes of the ESG jury:
1.Palmistry Is it all a load of rubbish? Doctors use the nails for medical diagnosis, for example. Midwives check the palms of babies for signs of Down’s syndrome.Yes, basically a load of rubbish. Life-lines? Love-lines? no, I don't believe in them.
2.Feng Shui It’s used extensively in the Far East. And by western companies like Virgin Airways, British Airways, Microsoft. Are they wasting their money?It depends. The brain is a complex thing, and I believe there are many ways to influence people's moods. I don't see why some elements of Feng Shui shouldn't work. More than that I can't say, out of ignorance.
3.UFOs Pilots, scientists and astronauts have seen them. Are they all ‘nut-jobs’?
http://www.rense.com/general9/filers32201.htmNut jobs, attention-seeking, or mistaken. Sorry.
4.Weather ControlAre we in the realms of science-fiction?Yes, very much so. You can seed clouds with potassium iodide crystals in the hope of generating rain-drops and causing rain. You can alter the climate by changing the nature of vegetation (desertification) over a large area that changes the amount of sunlight reflected and can alter the local microclimate. You can drain swamps to reduce the level of evaporation again on a microclimate scale. Or you can hypothesise about the effects of global warming. But you can't make the sun shine on a chosen day, and you can't book a thunderstorm for 3 o'clock this afternoon.

David Bailey
3rd-September-2005, 05:31 PM
I don't know enough (actually, anything) about it, but I don't see why some degree of weather control shouldn't be possible at some point - obviously it's a complex system, and vast forces are involved, but it doesn't seem inherently impossible over the longer-term (i.e. several centuries) to achieve some degree of control.

Clearly most scientists think we can achieve global climate change in the long-term simply by our by use of / abuse of greenhouse gasses. Exact, short-term and local climate control would be implausible, but achieving more control than we have no would seem likely.

Interestingly, I just noticed the quote "Are we in the realms of science-fiction?" as used by Ash, as referring to something being basically nutty.

Whereas I'd use it as meaning "not yet possible, but not implausible".

El Salsero Gringo
3rd-September-2005, 06:20 PM
I don't know enough (actually, anything) about it, but I don't see why some degree of weather control shouldn't be possible at some point - obviously it's a complex system, and vast forces are involved, but it doesn't seem inherently impossible over the longer-term (i.e. several centuries) to achieve some degree of control.The difficulty with controlling weather, as far as I can see, is the energy requirements.

The earth's weather is driven by the energy falling on the earth from the sun.

The radiative flux from the sun arriving at the earth, is 1360 W/m^2. The earth has a radius of approx 6.4x10^6 metres, in other words it subtends to the sun a disc of area 1.4 x 10^14 square metres.

The incident energy from the sun therefore arrives at the earth at a rate of 1.9 x 10^17 watts. That's 190 Million Gigawatts. If the sun were extinguished, then the earth would cool, and surface weather would cease. Since the earth is roughly in a steady state as far as temperature goes, that is therefore a good approximation for how much solar radiation it takes to heat the atmosphere, drive convection, create clouds, winds and so on.

Lightning strikes involve potential differences between the upper atmosphere and earth of several hundred million volts. At any one instant on planet earth, there are enough simultaneous thunderstorms to generate a continuous current of several thousand amps flowing between the upper atmosphere and earth. In electrical discharges alone - entirely driven by convection currents in the atmosphere - i.e. by the weather - some hundreds of gigawatts of energy are used up. More energy than conceivably be harnessed in one place by man - short of thermonuclear detonations.

While it is true that weather patterns are non-linear (the so-called butterfly effect where a small change in initial conditions produces a large change in the outcome) any method of controling the weather would have to predict the outcome of very small changes. That kind of prediction is usually ruled out by the same non-linear and unpredictable behaviour that one would be trying to control.

Before I'm going to sign up for 'weather control', I'm going to have to be convinced either:

That whoever (and it is usually the US government in this kind of story) has discovered an enormous and controllable source of energy here on earth of a size to rival the sun and mucking about with the earth's weather is the best thing they can think to do with it

Or, that someone, somewhere, has discovered a method not only of accurately predicting the weather in the future from it's current conditions (the London Met Centre can't presently do that) but predicting which small changes could be made now in order to influence weather patterns in a particular direction in the future - a vastly harder task.

David Bailey
3rd-September-2005, 08:46 PM
The difficulty with controlling weather, as far as I can see, is the energy requirements.
{ snip clever stuff }
I believe it's my turn to employ "Strategem D" and say: huh?

No-one loves a smart ass...

bigdjiver
3rd-September-2005, 11:30 PM
:devil: Vast sunscreens designed like space yachts powered by the solar wind being moved into position to shield parts of the earth. Others being used to reflect sunshine where it is required. Give the moon a coat of aluminium while we are at it and save a fortune in street lighting. :devil:

El Salsero Gringo
4th-September-2005, 12:08 PM
I believe it's my turn to employ "Strategem D" and say: huh?Just laying out why I don't think weather control is possible. On the other hand, I could persuaded it's possible if anyone can point out how either of those two hurdles can be overcome, or else why neither of them is in fact the problem I think it is.

You see, that's the great thing about being 'scientific' - you get to be wonderfully open-minded about things.

David Bailey
4th-September-2005, 08:34 PM
On the other hand, I could persuaded it's possible if anyone can point out how either of those two hurdles can be overcome, or else why neither of them is in fact the problem I think it is.
Strange, I'd see them as more "avenues of approach" than "hurdles" - either the brute force method, or subtle predictions.

Just out of interest, does anyone know if carefully-placed nuke exploded in hurricane Katrina would have added to the devastation, helped disrupt it's power, or had little effect?

El Salsero Gringo
4th-September-2005, 09:07 PM
Strange, I'd see them as more "avenues of approach" than "hurdles" - either the brute force method, or subtle predictions.Actually, quite categorically - no. Neither suggests an actual approach of how to manipulate the weather. This is just basic order-of-magnitude energetic considerations, kind of a kindergarten stuff for physicists. But very useful to get an idea of how difficult something *might* be. Both hurdles might easily be overcome but weather control could *still* be totally impossible.
Just out of interest, does anyone know if carefully-placed nuke exploded in hurricane Katrina would have added to the devastation, helped disrupt it's power, or had little effect?I'd guess, no effect whatsoever. Atmospheric nuclear tests had little direct effect on the atmosphere.

ducasi
4th-September-2005, 11:45 PM
... earth signs (Taurus, Virgo & Capricorn) go with water signs (Cancer, Scorpio, & Pisces) ... Interesting that I'm a Capricorn, and that the water signs, Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces have a marked presence so-far on the poll.

No idea what that means, though I'd be curious to hear what sceptics-R-us have to say about the poll distribution?

JoC
4th-September-2005, 11:54 PM
I have a dilemma... whether to proceed with my plan to buy and read something along the lines of New Scientist (at least once a month) with religious fervour and undertake routinised study duties of said publication to keep up, or just sod it and read the forum to inform me of all the science I need ever know.... I can trust you guys to be accurate, utterly sound of opinion and right, can't I?

(By the way did anyone know there's a band called ESG who have a song called 'Dance', which from one listen just seems to have the lyrics, 'well' and 'dance' (not including 'oh'). Haven't worked out the grammar yet.)

JoC
5th-September-2005, 12:03 AM
Interesting that I'm a Capricorn, and that the water signs, Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces have a marked presence so-far on the poll.

No idea what that means, though I'd be curious to hear what sceptics-R-us have to say about the poll distribution?And :yeah: , I already tried a little hint to this effect. From the distinct trend identified I infer that there is a propensity for people born on the dates that correlate to the above astrological signs, to happen to be ceroc dancing internet chat room poll voters. People who were not born within these date ranges are less likely to have voted.

Why is scorpio a water sign?

ducasi
5th-September-2005, 12:14 AM
Why is scorpio a water sign? And why is Aquarius not? (Think I know the answer to this one though...)

Ash
5th-September-2005, 07:27 PM
Why is scorpio a water sign? JoC
That’s a very good question. And I don’t know! It got me thinking…and I’ve only come up with a tenuous link: Scorpio is ruled by Pluto, the god of the underworld-and this could include water. The rest of the signs are straightforward but this one’s a mystery-just like Scorpio, really.

And why is Aquarius not... Ducasi
Aquarius is an air sign. Aquarians like to help humanity and the water symbolism is connected with the distribution of new ideas. Famous ones include Abraham Lincoln, Lewis Carrol, Thomas Edison, Louis Pasteur, Charles Darwin, Mary Quant….
('New ideas' aren't exclusively Aquarian-but that's what the sign inclines towards.)

:)

David Bailey
7th-September-2005, 07:33 AM
That’s a very good question. And I don’t know! It got me thinking…
:eek: :rolleyes: :innocent:


Scorpio is ruled by Pluto, the god of the underworld-and this could include water.
So, you're saying you also believe in Greek gods?

El Salsero Gringo
7th-September-2005, 09:18 AM
:eek: :rolleyes: :innocent:


So, you're saying you also believe in Greek gods?I presume we're talking about Pluto the planet? (Or else we really are in the midst of the Roman pantheon...) Pluto was discovered by Clyde Tombaugh on Feb 18, 1930. So what was Scorpio considered to be ruled by before then? (And what if the planet had been named after a different god - or not a god at all?)

Would it be wrong to think that, prior to 1930, without one of the planets in the solar system in their charts, astrologers might have noticed 'something missing' in their readings?

Are any astrologers today able to detect anything still 'missing' and so predict the location of any further small planets, purely from astrological theory? That would be a very good predictive test.

Ash
7th-September-2005, 11:53 PM
So, you're saying you also believe in Greek gods? DavidJames
No, I don’t believe in Greek gods. :rolleyes: Like I don’t believe in the push spin or the hand jive. I just use them when I need them.

Pluto was discovered by Clyde Tombaugh on Feb 18, 1930.So what was Scorpio considered to be ruled by before then? (And what if the planet had been named after a different god - or not a god at all?)
It was ruled by Mars before then; some astrologers can still take that into consideration.

I know this isn’t going to wash with the sceptics but fate/synchronicity can come into the equation. So the choice of name can link into the meaning…
So Pluto, the god of the underworld, is all about hidden things, mysteries…and Scorpios make great detectives, psychologists, surgeons, researchers, atomic scientists, occultists…anything with hidden depths. (Their probing minds can also make them suspicious!)

The first major astrology books about Pluto weren’t published until the 1980s. That’s because it can take a while for astrologers to accept a new planet-and hindsight can clarify the meaning.

Would it be wrong to think that, prior to 1930, without one of the planets in the solar system in their charts, astrologers might have noticed 'something missing' in their readings
They worked with what they had-and each new discovery added to their knowledge. They haven’t got a periodic table like science.

Are any astrologers today able to detect anything still 'missing' and so predict the location of any further small planets, purely from astrological theory? That would be a very good predictive test.
I suppose that could work up to a point. Mercury rules Gemini and Virgo-but astrologers think that the latter sign has its own, undiscovered ruler. But location?

El Salsero Gringo
8th-September-2005, 08:41 AM
I don’t believe in the push spin or the hand jive.APOSTASY! Fetch the guards!
I know this isn’t going to wash with the sceptics but fate/synchronicity can come into the equation. So the choice of name can link into the meaning…You mean fate decreed that whoever chose the name would come up with something astrologically appropriate? Call it ESP, but somehow I knew you were going to say that!
...but astrologers think that the latter sign has its own, undiscovered ruler. But location?It would be quite a coup if you could tell.

David Bailey
8th-September-2005, 10:14 AM
No, I don’t believe in Greek gods. :rolleyes:
OK, so why mention the whole underworld thing then?


Like I don’t believe in the push spin or the hand jive. I just use them when I need them.
:grin:


I know this isn’t going to wash with the sceptics but fate/synchronicity can come into the equation. So the choice of name can link into the meaning…
Hmmm, that's actually interesting.

You (or someone) could definitely make an argument that Scorpios have certain personalities because people expect them to have such personalities, or that XXX signs are "supposed" to be creative, so knowing that, they develop their creative side more.

Or that people born in the year of the dog are "supposed to have" certain personality traits, and therefore exhibit such personality traits. Bit like giving a dog a bad name, really :)

But that's psychology and belief, and still has nothing to do with any real predictive and objective power. In fact, that's an argument against the objective existence of astrology. Excellent... :innocent:

LMC
8th-September-2005, 10:57 AM
You (or someone) could definitely make an argument that Scorpios have certain personalities because people expect them to have such personalities, or that XXX signs are "supposed" to be creative, so knowing that, they develop their creative side more.

Or that people born in the year of the dog are "supposed to have" certain personality traits, and therefore exhibit such personality traits. Bit like giving a dog a bad name, really :)

But that's psychology and belief, and still has nothing to do with any real predictive and objective power. In fact, that's an argument against the objective existence of astrology. Excellent... :innocent:

But a very similar argument (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=143845&postcount=131) to that was ignored :tears:

:whistle:

David Bailey
8th-September-2005, 11:13 AM
But a very similar argument (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=143845&postcount=131) to that was ignored :tears:

Yeah, 'coz it was junk... :innocent:

I'm talking more about the "astrology 'exists' because people believe in it" argument, rather than the "astrology works for individuals because some individuals will believe in anything" argument. Similar, but mine has the crucial advantage of being mine.

Not that I won't plagiarise anyone's argument if I feel like it of course.

LMC
8th-September-2005, 11:39 AM
Not that I won't plagiarise anyone's argument if I feel like it of course.
Since the principles are the same please do, 'cos they'll listen to you :tears:

anyone got any worms?

And I'm genuinely interested in what Ash has to say about the whole self-fulfilling prophecy thing.... :devil:

Ash
8th-September-2005, 10:18 PM
You (or someone) could definitely make an argument that Scorpios have certain personalities because people expect them to have such personalities, or that XXX signs are "supposed" to be creative, so knowing that, they develop their creative side more.

That does make sense…up to a point. People can do that-but there are negative traits, for example, that people have to be aware of concerning their star sign.

Think of this another way…Somebody from America, for example, will have certain traits linked to them because they belong to a certain country. That’s how star signs work: you know Scorpios will have certain traits because they belong to a particular group.

You can break that down further by thinking of somebody from a specific part of America: the Deep South, the Mid West, the East Coast, the West Coast. And then further by city: L.A., New York, Boston, Atlanta…and so on. And the more specific you become about somebody’s birthchart the more information you get.

And you can go beyond traits and look at the physical characteristics of a star sign. Scorpios, for example, can have deep, penetrating eyes. :eek:

David Bailey
9th-September-2005, 09:18 AM
People can do that-but there are negative traits, for example, that people have to be aware of concerning their star sign.
I don't think anyone has to be aware of any bad traits someone tells them they ought to have...


Think of this another way…Somebody from America, for example, will have certain traits linked to them because they belong to a certain country. That’s how star signs work:
No, that's how national cultures work. US citizens, simply by growing up in the US culture, will of course have a general set of shared cultural characteristics. As will UK, or for that matter Mongolian, citizens.


You can break that down further by thinking of somebody from a specific part of America: the Deep South, the Mid West, the East Coast, the West Coast. And then further by city: L.A., New York, Boston, Atlanta…and so on. And the more specific you become about somebody’s birthchart the more information you get.
The more information about a person you get, the more information in general you can predict about that person's personality, characteristics, likely values and so on. None of this has anything to do with astrology.


And you can go beyond traits and look at the physical characteristics of a star sign. Scorpios, for example, can have deep, penetrating eyes. :eek:
That's a very subjective judgement - but if most Scorpios don't have "deep, penetrating eyes", does that mean astrology is cack? Nope, course not, hence the cunning use of "can" and the postive-yet-subjective attribute - not many people are going to say "Actually, I have shallow and feeble eyes".

Ash
9th-September-2005, 10:49 AM
No, that's how national cultures work. US citizens, simply by growing up in the US culture, will of course have a general set of shared cultural characteristics. As will UK, or for that matter Mongolian, citizens...


My analogy is, obviously, redundant if you don’t subscribe to astrology.

David Bailey
9th-September-2005, 11:09 AM
My analogy is, obviously, redundant if you don’t subscribe to astrology.
What, you don't think I'm a believer? :eek:

OK, here's the argument I've stolen from New- errr, LMC:

Astrology only "works" on an individual and subjective basis, as a means of glamorous psychotherapy and making people feel good about themselves.

People who go and pay money to astrologers are generally people who believe in astrology, and who will generally be willing to believe the accurate information and ignore the stuff that's just wrong. So these people leave, convinced that It Works.

This belief therefore spreads in many cultures that it works - everyone knows someone whose life was Changed By Astrology, so There Must Be Something In It. (OK, I know, too many initial caps, I'll stop now)

To balance this, here's a personal counter-example of astrology not working:
Many years ago, I was in Camden with a "friend" (i.e. someone I wanted to be more-than-a-friend with). She persuaded me to visit an astrologer there. After about 20 minutes of consultation, I was left with the clear and strong impression that the stars were propitious for me to go for it and ask her out, even though I'd no idea whether an approach on my part would be welcomed. So I did.

It wasn't welcomed, and our friendship hasn't been the same since; there's always been a bit of tension there because of that.

Ever since then I've lost any faith in the ability of stars to tell me anything I didn't already know.

LMC
9th-September-2005, 11:20 AM
What, you don't think I'm a believer? :eek:

OK, here's the argument I've stolen from New- errr, LMC:

Astrology only "works" on an individual and subjective basis, as a means of glamorous psychotherapy and making people feel good about themselves.

People who go and pay money to astrologers are generally people who believe in astrology, and who will generally be willing to believe the accurate information and ignore the stuff that's just wrong. So these people leave, convinced that It Works.
:yeah: (but you've argued it better - shorter anyway, which may amount to the same thing...)

If astrology turns someone into a better person who is less likely to go around carrying out chainsaw massacres then fair enough, each to their own and all that. But the opposite could be "of course I'm an arsonist, I'm a Sagittarius (is Sag. a fire sign?)" - i.e. astrology is used to excuse behaviour, or a poor decision - "well, the stars were propitious for the bank robbery, it's not *my* fault it all went wrong" (perhaps the fault of the Wicked Unbelievers?). Like religion, astrology is all too often used as an excuse to avoid personal responsibility. Or is it only me who can see marked similarities in arguments in the two threads?

I LIKE initial capitals, they are good when you're feeling sarcastic.

ducasi
9th-September-2005, 12:07 PM
Anybody else bored of this pointless bickering between people who clearly are not about to change their positions? :really:

I think it's fair to say that for most people, no matter what they believe, astrology isn't a major evil, and that it may actually inspire courage, compassion, or some other positive result now and then.

Interesting ... that the water signs, Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces have a marked presence so-far on the poll.

No idea what that means, though I'd be curious to hear what sceptics-R-us have to say about the poll distribution? Here's what I found about water signs from google...

They communicate in nonverbal ways; emotionally, psychically, or through forms as art, dance, music, poetry and photography. (Link (http://www.trans4mind.com/personal_development/astrology/LearningAstrology/triplicities.htm))
Their desire to feel good extends to an attraction to pleasurable, sensual activities from dancing to drinking to sex. (Link (http://www.thymetoheal.com/introduction_of_the.htm))
There's an immense creative aspect in the water element. Think of music, watercolor, poetry, dance, all flowing media. (Link (http://www.rainbowcrystal.com/crystal/cancer-pisces.html)) Each of these three quotes come from pages full of the sort of nonsense that the sceptics love to sink their teeth into, but all three have picked out dancing as something special for the water signs. Our poll seems to reflect this.

So without a good answer as to why the poll has anything but the distribution you'd expect, it's hard not to wonder that there might just be something to it.

El Salsero Gringo
9th-September-2005, 12:11 PM
So without a good answer as to why the poll has anything but the distribution you'd expect, it's hard not to wonder that there might just be something to it.I can look down every single paragraph of that page and pick out at least one thing that describes me. Yet for each paragraph there are dozens of things that I'm not.

It really is a case of looking for coincidences to interpret.

ducasi
9th-September-2005, 12:25 PM
I can look down every single paragraph of that page and pick out at least one thing that describes me. Yet for each paragraph there are dozens of things that I'm not.

It really is a case of looking for coincidences to interpret. Still not answered why there are around three times as many votes for each of Pisces, Scorpio and Cancer than for Sagittarius on our poll... :whistle:

David Bailey
9th-September-2005, 12:42 PM
Anybody else bored of this pointless bickering between people who clearly are not about to change their positions? :really:
Well, I'm not bored yet - but I'm happy to bow out if other people are finding this boring? (maybe I should post a poll to find out if we should stop arguing :) )

Clearly, I, ESG, LMC are on the "It's all junk" side, and Ash is on the "No it's not" side (alternatively, we're all ganging up on poor Ash :) ), but I've learnt a lot myself, and I'm happy to keep debating as long as Ash is.

Considering most of the main posters have extremely strong opinions, I'm quite happy to see we've kept the level of discussion so relatively civilised.

However, I'm happy to stop if people would prefer?


Still not answered why there are around three times as many votes for each of Pisces, Scorpio and Cancer than for Sagittarius on our poll.
That's easy - it's a small sample size, these variations are bound to occur. If the results were a poll of thousands instead of dozens, that'd be more of an interesting anomaly. As it is, it's just not significant.

Rhythm King
9th-September-2005, 12:49 PM
However, I'm happy to stop if people would prefer?


Hmm, difficult one. I'll just consult my runestones and get back to you...

ducasi
9th-September-2005, 12:56 PM
Hmm, difficult one. I'll just consult my runestones and get back to you...
My Magic 8-ball says "Better not tell you now." :sad:

I trust it implicitly – it can even give accurate reviews of software... "Outlook not so good". :wink:

bigdjiver
9th-September-2005, 05:04 PM
Whereas I have no belief in Astrology, I can have some belief in Astrologers. It is possible to use peoples gullibility and belief in the supernatural for good or for evil. Astrologers and priests can influence those otherwise unreachable by saying "God says ..." or "The stars say ..." . If a lot of employees follow the boss along to his favourite astrologer, or priest, in is quite possible for them to act as very effective management consultants.

El Salsero Gringo
9th-September-2005, 05:10 PM
That's easy - it's a small sample size, these variations are bound to occur. If the results were a poll of thousands instead of dozens, that'd be more of an interesting anomaly. As it is, it's just not significant.I'm not sure if it is significant. I'll read up in my old statistics textbooks, and check it out.

LMC
9th-September-2005, 05:12 PM
I'm not sure if it is significant. I'll read up in my old statistics textbooks, and check it out.
ooooh, does that mean we can start having a discussion about standard deviations? :devil:

El Salsero Gringo
9th-September-2005, 05:13 PM
ooooh, does that mean we can start having a discussion about standard deviations? :devil:No, but we can talk about null hypotheses, and confidence levels.

LMC
9th-September-2005, 05:20 PM
Defining a null hypothesis could get interesting... :what: - presumably something along the lines of whether signs of certain elements are more (or less) likely to respond to a poll will be the nearest we can get to anything provable or disprovable?

But I'm with the rep-tart, I suspect the sample size is too small to draw any confident conclusions - based on exactly no scientific evidence whatsoever (but the pixies told me).

El Salsero Gringo
9th-September-2005, 05:34 PM
Defining a null hypothesis could get interesting... :what: - presumably something along the lines of whether signs of certain elements are more (or less) likely to respond to a poll will be the nearest we can get to anything provable or disprovable?

But I'm with the rep-tart, I suspect the sample size is too small to draw any confident conclusions - based on exactly no scientific evidence whatsoever (but the pixies told me).The null hypothesis is that the distribution of starsigns on this poll is random.

You assume the null hypothesis, and see how unlikely it is to have occured: i.e. it it *were* random, then the peaky distribution observed would crop up (say) once in a hundred million 'universes'.

You can then decide whether it's more likely that this is a one-in-a-hundred-million scenario, or whether to accept the other hypothesis - that the distribution is not random and that there is a correlation.

If, statistically, you'd expect to see such a peaky distribution every one in 10 times then that's not very compelling. If it's much more unlikely then that provides stronger evidence that 'something is going on'. It doesn't prove anything about astrology but it suggests there's something worth investigating.

David Franklin
9th-September-2005, 05:52 PM
OK, did a quick simulation to find the probabilities for the frequencies of the most, least popular signs. (I decided analytic was going to get painful, because the two variables aren't independant). Over 1 million trials, I find:

Five is actually the most common frequency for the least common sign with probability 32.3%. Fourteen is the most common frequency for the most common sign with probabiliity 25%. The frequency of the most common sign being 17 occurs with probability 7.2%. The frequency of the 3rd most common sign being 13 occurs with probability 14.3%.

So the discrepancy between most and least common signs isn't particularly surprising. Neither is the fact that 3 signs have frequency at least 13.


I assumed each sign occurs with probability 1/12. I used a random number generator regarded as reasonably sound (not rand()!). I repeated the trial twice with different seeds - the answers didn't change significantly.

[**]There were 112 polled when I started (unless I typoed). It's now 116 - it doesn't affect the results significantly.

El Salsero Gringo
9th-September-2005, 06:36 PM
OK, did a quick simulation to find the probabilities for the frequencies of the most, least popular signs. (I decided analytic was going to get painful, because the two variables aren't independant). David,

I think the analytic route is easier than you think.

The numbers under each starsign (if random) would be expected to follow a Binomial distribution with parameters 1/12 (for the probabillity) and 116 for the number of samples (at time of writing, discounting the 5 who voted for "it's a load of rubbish.")

Each star sign is effectively its own random variable.

If you want to be extremely picky then you can lose 1 degree of freedom because you have a fixed number of 'votes' across 12 rv's - but I can't see that's going to sway the results very much.

Below I've graphed Bin(1/12,116) and next to it the actual distribution of the 12 samples which, under the null hypothesis, are drawn from this parent distribution.

There's nothing there to make me think that the results aren't random.

El Salsero Gringo
9th-September-2005, 07:25 PM
OK, now let's look at the Earth/Air/Fire/Water thing.

The votes for each starsign counted by 'element' are as follows:

Fire:22 Earth:27 Air:22 Water:45

Using the same analysis as above where the votes for each element might (under the null hypothesis) be Binomially distributed, this time with parameters 1/4 for the probability and 116 for the sample size, a number as large as 45 or larger would be expected to occur 36 times in every 10,000 samples, or, if you like, about once every 2500 times.

I can think of two comments to make: firstly, the random variables here are not independent: since we know a priori that they sum to 116, they are connected, or, in other words, we've lost a degree of freedom. I think - but I'm not sure - that means the results are more likely to be spread towards the edge of the distribution, and the 'oddball' result of 45 is more likely than the analysis suggests. If anyone knows more statistics than I do, I welcome your comments.

Secondly: Examining the data at the level of individual star-signs gives (see my previous post) gives a very good fit with the null, random, hypothesis. Re-examining the data on the 'elemental' level gives a much less good fit for the null hypothesis. Yet it isn't possible for the star-signs to be distributed both randomly and non-randomly. Those in favour of astrology can fasten on to the 'elemental' count and claim it as evidence in their favour. Those against can equally well accuse the pro camp of slicing and dicing the data until it's forced to show a pattern.

To try to resolve this, the best course I can think of is to repeat the experiment with a larger data set. With more data, one would expect the differences between the numbers to become much smaller (if they are random) or to remain proportionately similar - if non random. When I have a chance I will analyse the birthdates of all members of the forum as detailed on the members page and see how that turns out.

David Franklin
9th-September-2005, 08:10 PM
I think the analytic route is easier than you think.

Each star sign is effectively its own random variable.

If you want to be extremely picky then you can lose 1 degree of freedom because you have a fixed number of 'votes' across 12 rv's - but I can't see that's going to sway the results very much.It all depends on how you're defining the hypotheses. If you want to choose the 'important' signs, and then see how likely a 'skew' distribution is, what you've done is fine. But without quite a few subsequent calculations, I don't think it tells you about, say, the distribution of the frequency for the least frequent sign. And I think calculating the distribution of the frequency of the 3rd most frequent sign would be very hairy indeed.

I can't say I've actually been reading the thread carefully enough to know which was the more appropriate hypothesis, so I chose the more "null" one, so-to-speak. (i.e. how likely is it we get a skew distribution, not how likely is it we get one with Sagittarius having the least votes etc.)

Which hypothesis makes a big difference, as seen by your subsequent calculation - the probability of the top 3 signs having at least 45 votes seems to be about 8%.

El Salsero Gringo
9th-September-2005, 08:23 PM
I can't say I've actually been reading the thread carefully enough to know which was the more appropriate hypothesis, so I chose the more "null" one, so-to-speak.The only null hypothesis that's possible is that each voter has a 1/12 chance of being of any star sign. That - by definition - leads to a binomial distribution.


By the way, before I count the star signs of all the (declared) forum members, are there any Astrologers who, believing that there is a connection between dance and star sign, are prepared to say that they predict this same 'water sign' pattern will be repeated? Time to get off the fence, ladies and gentlemen...

David Franklin
9th-September-2005, 08:28 PM
The only null hypothesis that's possible is that each voter has a 1/12 chance of being of any star sign. That - by definition - leads to a binomial distribution.Bad phrasing on my part. I was talking about the "nullness" (i.e. specificity) of the alternative hypothesis. Using "null" didn't help make things clear!

El Salsero Gringo
9th-September-2005, 09:47 PM
Another way of looking at the probability of bias towards the water sign: what's the likelihood that the three most popular star signs are a given three, in any order - under the random hypothesis?

Answer 1/12 x 1/11 x 1/10 x (3 x 2 x 1) which is 1/220

Ash
10th-September-2005, 12:11 AM
Like religion, astrology is all too often used as an excuse to avoid personal responsibility.
Astrology (& any ‘spiritual art’) is all about personal responsibility. An astrologer can’t tell you what to do-they can merely advise you. You have to find your own truth…whatever that is.

We know what Sceptics-R-Us think: any discussion will end up in a cull-de-sac. It would be nice to hear what the non-sceptics think.

:)

P.S. I don’t know why the water signs score the highest in the poll. (Pisces possesses natural dance ability. The sign rules the feet.)

ducasi
10th-September-2005, 12:25 AM
I'm glad that this question is now being looked at scientifically... I just wish my statistics was up to understanding everything that has been said.

You appear to concede that the water elements vs. the rest is an unexpected result. As the claims about dancing I referred to were specifically about water signs, rather than one sign in particular, I'm much happier with this being investigated, as opposed to just the "Sagittarius vs Pisces" issue, which, when taken on its own, could quite clearly be the result of random distribution in a small sample size.

By the way, before I count the star signs of all the (declared) forum members, are there any Astrologers who, believing that there is a connection between dance and star sign, are prepared to say that they predict this same 'water sign' pattern will be repeated? Time to get off the fence, ladies and gentlemen... I'd had a thought to do this myself, but found I had socks that needed washed instead. :wink:

One thing to be careful of is that there are lots of people whose birthday seems to fall on the 1st of January. You'll probably want to exclude these ones. In fact it's likely that quite a few people have not declared their true birthday to the world, but just picked a date at random. Let's hope though it's a statistically insignificant number... :na:

David Bailey
10th-September-2005, 03:35 PM
It would be nice to hear what the non-sceptics think.
I think they've all been scared off.
In fact, I think ESG and David have scared me off too for a while, I'm getting maths degree flashbacks now... :eek:

Piglet
10th-September-2005, 03:48 PM
It would be nice to hear what the non-sceptics think.


I'm with you Ash! Support you wholeheartedly, but don't know enough about it all to verbally argue your corner.

All I would say, from the little that I know, is that of course the Horoscopes that are printed in the paper are (slightly) tosh cos you can't have a proper reading from only one of your signs (although being at least a double Virgo - I've not worked out my third sign yet - but one day when I have got time... - then I guess I've got a 2/3 of a chance of it being right for me!)

I would also love to get into Tarot reading, but the one reading that I did for a friend had me in so much stitches - she was desperate to know when she would meet a decent partner and the cards told me that it wouldn't be for the next 12 months (and as I knew that wasn't what she wanted to hear) I creased up and couldn't tell her for ages for laughing (being of a nature where I laugh at others' misfortunes!) so I know I probably am not the right person for anyone to come to when they need reassurance in that way!

Did any of the guys that are anti-astrology ever admit their own signs? I would say that that would probably tell us something in the first place :whistle: :whistle: :whistle:

El Salsero Gringo
10th-September-2005, 04:13 PM
OK, I've analysed the declared birthdays of 1005 Forum members.

19 Put down for January the first, as against an average of 2.7 for any other day of the year, so I've reduced the January 1 score to 3 instead.

The numbers falling under each starsign are as follows:

84 Aries
91 Taurus
89 Gemini
94 Cancer
90 Leo
82 Virgo
72 Libra
65 Scorpio
62 Sagittarius
91 Capricorn
80 Aquarius
89 Pisces

Dividing these up into their elemental groups:

236 Fire (Aries, Leo, Sagittarius)
241 Air (Libra, Aquarius, Gemini)
248 Water (Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces)
264 Earth (Capricorn, Taurus, Virgo)

Total 989 (Made up of 1005 - 19 + 3 as explained above)

I shall leave it to someone else to point out the obvious regarding the water signs, but I still remain very much a sceptic.

WittyBird
10th-September-2005, 04:25 PM
I would also love to get into Tarot reading,
With the Tarot you are suppose to be given a set as a present or inherit them, you are not suppose to just go out and buy them. :grin: :rofl:

Piglet
10th-September-2005, 04:38 PM
And what's wrong with giving yourself a present?

Especially when it brings you so much fun and hilarity? :rofl:

David Bailey
10th-September-2005, 06:48 PM
OK, I've analysed the declared birthdays of 1005 Forum members.
OK, you are now scaring even me...


{ snip informative but unsurprising stats }
Is there a BFG "Waaaay to much time on his hands" award?


but the one reading that I did for a friend had me in so much stitches - she was desperate to know when she would meet a decent partner and the cards told me that it wouldn't be for the next 12 months
Out of interest, what were the results 12 months later?


Did any of the guys that are anti-astrology ever admit their own signs? I would say that that would probably tell us something in the first place :whistle: :whistle: :whistle:
Well, I'm a Libra, if that helps. I vaguely recall we're supposed to be sensitive, witty and artistic. And bi-sexual, I believe, which caused me a little concern when I read it... :whistle:

WittyBird
10th-September-2005, 06:53 PM
Well, I'm a Libra, if that helps. I vaguely recall we're supposed to be sensitive, witty and artistic. And bi-sexual, I believe, which caused me a little concern when I read it... :whistle:

Nope dont do it.. .*gags self and returns to cupboard* :rofl:

El Salsero Gringo
10th-September-2005, 07:18 PM
OK, you are now scaring even me...


Is there a BFG "Waaaay to much time on his hands" award?
Took about 30 minutes. Would have been 15 if I could have worked out how to stop Excel autoformatting things that look like dates, wrongly.

Anyway, if there were an award, I'd have won it aeons ago.

David Bailey
10th-September-2005, 07:37 PM
Nope dont do it.. .*gags self and returns to cupboard* :rofl:
It's OK. I'm not really artistic.
:innocent:

JoC
10th-September-2005, 07:52 PM
It's OK. I'm not really artistic.
:innocent:But aside from that the cap fits does it? Wayhey! I'm sure something you do could be massaged, manipulated and sculpted into being describable as artistic...or perhaps in your case there was a special anti-art planet ruling at your moment of birth.

Piglet
11th-September-2005, 05:29 PM
Out of interest, what were the results 12 months later?


My reading was accurate! She met a few guys but none worth hanging around with! Anyone fancy a reading? :whistle:

Piglet
11th-September-2005, 05:34 PM
Well, I'm a Libra, if that helps. I vaguely recall we're supposed to be sensitive, witty and artistic. And bi-sexual, I believe, which caused me a little concern when I read it... :whistle:


According to one of my books...

LIbra is a cardinal, masculine sign.

Positive traits include: tact, diplomacy, fairness, the ability to see both sides of a question, sympanthy.

Negative traits include: resentfulness, indecisiveness, a tendency to rock the boat, fulsomeness, gullibility.

Hmm that Rock the Boat is interesting.... :hug:

El Salsero Gringo
11th-September-2005, 05:53 PM
According to one of my books...

LIbra is a cardinal, masculine sign.

Positive traits include: tact, diplomacy, fairness, the ability to see both sides of a question, sympanthy.

Negative traits include: resentfulness, indecisiveness, a tendency to rock the boat, fulsomeness, gullibility.

Hmm that Rock the Boat is interesting.... :hug:Ha! David? Masculine? Ha! (Gullible, maybe, though.)

Sorry David, but it's in a good cause.

Anyway, does "tendency to rock the boat" mean I'm a Libran too?

Piglet
11th-September-2005, 06:08 PM
Anyway, does "tendency to rock the boat" mean I'm a Libran too?


Nah! You're definitely that new breed of Astrology sign : the Statistician! :wink:

David Bailey
11th-September-2005, 07:46 PM
According to one of my books...

LIbra is a cardinal, masculine sign.
Hmmmm, you know Tessalicious is a Libra? :innocent:


Positive traits include: tact
:rofl:


, diplomacy,
:rofl: :rofl:


fairness, the ability to see both sides of a question, sympanthy.
I'm out of ROFL icons through overuse, but I've clearly demonstrated all those qualities in this thread :rofl: (that was my emergency supply)


Negative traits include: resentfulness, indecisiveness, a tendency to rock the boat, fulsomeness, gullibility.
I resent that - I think...
And - fulsomeness? Dictionary.com says it means “offensively flattering or insincere". How can I be diplomatic and offensive at the same time?


Hmm that Rock the Boat is interesting.... :hug:
Nah, the chorus gets repetitive after a while.


Ha! David? Masculine? Ha! (Gullible, maybe, though.)

Sorry David, but it's in a good cause.
Nah, it's a fair cop :tears:

Lou
11th-September-2005, 08:04 PM
I shall leave it to someone else to point out the obvious regarding the water signs, Never one to resist such a challenge...

...so we conclude that people born under water signs enjoy voting on polls?

:na:

jockey
11th-September-2005, 10:11 PM
I didn't say anything about horoscopes or predicting the future. I was just saying it's a plausible theory that you can tell a lot about someone by knowing the time of year when they were born.

I think astrology has its origins in times when hardly anyone travelled very far from their place of birth so people with similar birthdays would be more homogeneous.

I notice Ash says you need to know the place of birth to do a horoscope though.
I dont think it is plausible.
Its worth noting that many philosophers of science regard a theory that cannot yield testable predictions as unscientific; its the testability that is the crucial aspect. Other criteria of science stress "explanatory power" as crucial - the betteer theory is the one that explains what the discarded theory explained and what it didnt explain.
I suppose the rival to astrology would be theories belonging to psychology and social psychology as these are in the business of explaining human behaviour.
I note that whereas the latter pair have made it on the university syllabus, astrology hasnt - I wonder if this has anything to do with their relative "plausibility"?

Piglet
12th-September-2005, 07:56 PM
Hmmmm, you know Tessalicious is a Libra?
I didn't but I do now. Nothing wrong with a bit a masculinity! (But I didn't write the book - simply quoted from it)

How can I be diplomatic and offensive at the same time?
I would counter-argue that being Libran and the sign of the scales - you do both to balance your world - a bit of this and a bit of that and a bit of the other :wink: :devil: :innocent:

Barry Shnikov
12th-March-2006, 12:38 PM
I'm a sceptic and I usually need to test things out and I know from first hand experience that it works. Like tarot cards, esp., ghosts etc. it doesn't lend itself to the narrow confines of science: it's too black and white. (The best scientist go beyond logic and use their intuition, like Einstein, who dreamt his theory of relativity.)

Einstein dreamt his theory of relativity? :eek:

Which one? The special theory or the general theory? And which element? Determining that the speed of light is a constant for all observers, or determining that space and time are incorporated into a single construct - space-time, or one of the other elements?

Sheesh. I suppose anyone sufficiently credulous (actually, the opposite of sceptic) to learn enough about astrology to make the charts could easily believe that 'relativity', the first of two paradigm-shifting breakthroughs in phsycis during the 19th century, came about because of a dream. I suppose Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger et al also have dreams to thank for the development of quantum mechanics. Perhaps they weren't sufficiently intuitive...come to think of it, they weren't. Everyone says quantum mechanics is counter intuitive - perhaps they should rethink it...:nice:

Barry Shnikov
12th-March-2006, 12:42 PM
Oh good. 'Coz, you know, that's exactly what I was trying to do, create a plausible General Theory of Astrology.

I think you really ought to confine yourself to developing a Special Theory first. Even ol' Albert took several years to move from the Special to the General. Not that I'm casting nasturtiums on your intellectual abilities.

Barry Shnikov
12th-March-2006, 12:48 PM
Do you believe that we can reduce love to a laboratory experiment?

Depends on the lab... :whistle:
...and what the lab assistant is wearing under her white coat...

Barry Shnikov
12th-March-2006, 12:54 PM
The CIA, for example, spent millions on remote-viewing over many decades, with notable successes.

For a healthy dose of accuracy, and belly laughs galore, I recommend Jon Ronsons The men who stare at goats.

El Salsero Gringo
12th-March-2006, 01:03 PM
Einstein dreamt his theory of relativity? :eek:

Which one? The special theory or the general theory? And which element? Determining that the speed of light is a constant for all observers, or determining that space and time are incorporated into a single construct - space-time, or one of the other elements?

According to 'legend' - he didn't in fact dream it - he "day-dreamed" the start of it, in other words he used a thought experiment to answer the question "what would I see if I were riding on the front of a beam of light?". The answer according to Newtonian relativity, that you'd experience the beam of light somehow stationary relative to yourself, was obviously nonsense to Einstein who had the guts to reformulate modern physics around the simple a priori assumption that such a feat must therefore be impossible. There's nothing particularly impressive about using a thought experment to determine some physics - GCSE students do it all the time. The impressive bit was to ask the right question, see the right answer and be brave enough to believe it.

The General Theory of Relativity wasn't the result of dreams but of a lot of very very hard tensor mathematics combined with a great deal of very wide awake thought.

Interestingly, Kekulé, who determined the structure of the Benzene ring, is said to have dreamed it after falling asleep by the fire. He saw six carbon atoms chasing each other around in a ring, all holding hands. The structure of Benzene is a six-membered ring of carbon atoms with two distributed bonding orbitals in which the electronic charge is shared around the whole ring. "Holding hands" if you like.

DavidY
12th-March-2006, 01:06 PM
So is resurrecting this thread another "tempt David James into making post 5001" strategy?:whistle:

Barry Shnikov
12th-March-2006, 01:12 PM
I respect that…but what if we don’t understand something? Do we always need a ‘how’? Do we dismiss everything else? Your tone is very dogmatic. Remember, I’m not dismissing science: all I’m looking for is a balance with the intuitive side. It can give you better insights into some areas, like love, for example. (Science has tried to reduce that to chemical reactions but it’s something far greater… poets and artists will have a better insight.)

It's precisely because the intuitive side is so tremendously attractive that double blind testing, falsifiable hypotheses and so forth were developed, to enable us to distinguish from what really is the case, and what is not. Science helped in the development of many things which has led, entirely understandably, to a deep seated distrust of scientists. (Mary Shelley didn't help.) Among those things would be: process automation (e.g. power looms), the production line, increasingly efficient weaponry (including nuclear weapons), nuclear power stations (scared the ***** out of us at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, etc), and lots more.

At the same time, 'the meejuh' told us to expect fabulous benefits from science - all the way from science fiction films of the thirties to the 'look what our amazing future holds in store' shorts from the 50s and 60s. In fact, many of those promises turned out to be illusory - yes, every home has a fridge and a washing machine, but mostly they have mothers absent at work in addition.

Then, there were the things that science clearly did do - wounded US soldiers in WWII were treated with sulfanilamide to prevent infection, very nasty and painful; in Korea they were treated with penicillin. Doctors and drug companies found cures for so many things, cures for cancer and the common cold seemed to be just around the corner.

No wonder there has been a stampede by those of insufficient intestinal fortitude to take shelter in things like coffee enemas, fruit diets and shark cartilage to cure cancer, magnetic copper bracelets for - um, arthritis, isn't it? - and aliens, astrology and communication with the dead to give some reassurance that the universe is not quite so frighteningly, terrifyingly, scrotum-tighteningly random as it seems...

How much more reassuring it is to believe that your departed parent can still 'look after you' from 'the other side, rather than that life can be snatched away by a mind-boggingly trivial and tiny thing like a virus; that there is some sense and predictability to the future rather than that your employer could be part of a corporate raider's next dollar-generating project thereby making you unemployed.

Barry Shnikov
12th-March-2006, 01:24 PM
To use the Indian curse as an example: that's only going to impress me if you tell me *now* (or better, at the time you lay the curse) that the next 10 presidents elected in zero years will die in office, and show me (again, in advance) how that's monstrously unlikely to occur by chance. Othwise I'm just going to accuse you of trawling through centuries of historical data (British Prime Ministers with an R in their middle names? French Foreign Ministers? or what about every forty-nine thousandth person in the London S-Z telephone directory?) until you come up with something that sounds impressive enough to take the really gullible.
Step forward, Michael Drosnin...:innocent:

bigdjiver
12th-March-2006, 01:25 PM
Einstein dreamt his theory of relativity? :eek:

... Sheesh. I suppose anyone sufficiently credulous (actually, the opposite of sceptic) to learn enough about astrology to make the charts could easily believe that 'relativity', the first of two paradigm-shifting breakthroughs in phsycis during the 19th century, came about because of a dream. I suppose Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger et al also have dreams to thank for the development of quantum mechanics. Perhaps they weren't sufficiently intuitive...come to think of it, they weren't. Everyone says quantum mechanics is counter intuitive - perhaps they should rethink it...:nice:If you give any credence to right-brain left-brain theory, and to the notion that dreams are the brains way of putting its house in order whilst "off-line" then you might be prepared to believe. For me it is down to personal experience. I have dreamed many solutions to problems, inventions (most of which turned out to have been "stolen" before I thought of them) and songs. Usually it is a rush to put these ideas down into concrete form before, like the memories of dreams, they vanish.

The poem "Kubla Khan" was allegedly dreamt, and the ending lost when Coleridge was interrpted by the postman.

El Salsero Gringo
12th-March-2006, 01:26 PM
At the same time, 'the meejuh' told us to expect fabulous benefits from science - all the way from science fiction films of the thirties to the 'look what our amazing future holds in store' shorts from the 50s and 60s. In fact, many of those promises turned out to be illusory - yes, every home has a fridge and a washing machine, but mostly they have mothers absent at work in addition.I think, actually Barry, you're underselling 'science' here. To take just one example, Dr. Thomas Stuttaford who writes a medical column in the Times took as his subject last week natural childbirth. His description of of the trauma of childbirth without ventouse suction, forceps, Caesarean section, epidural (and other) anaethetics made my blood run cold. The way that we don't 'see' how 'science' - and in this context you are fully entitled to include engineering and medical sciences - have transformed human existence is a weakness that the Astrology proponents are only too ready to exploit.

Barry Shnikov
12th-March-2006, 01:27 PM
Or how about a diagnostic therapy based on the pattern of moles on my back
...and they can be seen through the hair? Ugh...:sick:

Barry Shnikov
12th-March-2006, 01:40 PM
I presume we're talking about Pluto the planet?
No, dummy; Pluto the dog.

(Sheesh...pay attention, dude!)

Barry Shnikov
12th-March-2006, 01:44 PM
Many years ago, I was in Camden with a "friend" (i.e. someone I wanted to be more-than-a-friend with). She persuaded me to visit an astrologer there.
Oh yeah.

We've all been there, right?

"Here's a really tiny hoop, drenched in white phosphorous and blazing like a sonuvabitch. Just pop through, would you?"

Barry Shnikov
12th-March-2006, 01:46 PM
ooooh, does that mean we can start having a discussion about standard deviations?

No, but we can talk about null hypotheses, and confidence levels.
Yeah, confidence levels have to be pretty high before you propose any of the standard deviations, let alone the weird ones...

Barry Shnikov
12th-March-2006, 01:49 PM
Took about 30 minutes. Would have been 15 if I could have worked out how to stop Excel autoformatting things that look like dates, wrongly.
Microsoft and Autoformatting. Now that's almost enough to make you believe in God, even if just so you could pray for divine retribution.

Barry Shnikov
12th-March-2006, 01:52 PM
If you give any credence to right-brain left-brain theory, and to the notion that dreams are the brains way of putting its house in order whilst "off-line" then you might be prepared to believe. For me it is down to personal experience. I have dreamed many solutions to problems, inventions (most of which turned out to have been "stolen" before I thought of them) and songs. Usually it is a rush to put these ideas down into concrete form before, like the memories of dreams, they vanish.

The poem "Kubla Khan" was allegedly dreamt, and the ending lost when Coleridge was interrpted by the postman.
Hey, I'm not averse to the possibility that an important breakthrough might come from a dream. I'm just opposing the suggestion that the mighty Special and General Theories of Relativity weren't the result of Einstein applying his tremendous ability to thinking about and worrying at difficult issues for months at a time.

Barry Shnikov
12th-March-2006, 01:55 PM
I think, actually Barry, you're underselling 'science' here. To take just one example, Dr. Thomas Stuttaford who writes a medical column in the Times took as his subject last week natural childbirth. His description of of the trauma of childbirth without ventouse suction, forceps, Caesarean section, epidural (and other) anaethetics made my blood run cold. The way that we don't 'see' how 'science' - and in this context you are fully entitled to include engineering and medical sciences - have transformed human existence is a weakness that the Astrology proponents are only too ready to exploit.
O, absolutely. My feeling is that western society has, for decades, been given to expect that science will eventually - and somewhat sooner rather than later - solve all problems. So while we will all doff our cap to the tremendous successes - many suffer from a sneaky desire to nip off and make a libation to the penates.

Barry Shnikov
12th-March-2006, 01:55 PM
Wow. That was a great way to use up most of Sunday morning thus not doing the things I really ought to be doing...whatchamacallit, displacement activity.:rolleyes:

bigdjiver
12th-March-2006, 02:26 PM
Hey, I'm not averse to the possibility that an important breakthrough might come from a dream. I'm just opposing the suggestion that the mighty Special and General Theories of Relativity weren't the result of Einstein applying his tremendous ability to thinking about and worrying at difficult issues for months at a time.We are on the same page. Most of my dream creative breakthroughs have come about after long periods of unsuccessful hard work. I once spent days filling pages with ideas to meet a songwriting challenge to write a song on the theme of someone wondering if they tried to take a long time friendship into a romantic relationship, and if they might lose a friend instead of gaining a lover. In the end the lot was junked after semi-awake I looked out of the window and the song came to me :"On the other side of the window, the flowers have a scent ...".

ducasi
12th-March-2006, 03:44 PM
Wow. That was a great way to use up most of Sunday morning thus not doing the things I really ought to be doing...whatchamacallit, displacement activity.:rolleyes: Hope you feel better now you've got all that out of your system. :flower:

Beowulf
23rd-June-2006, 08:34 AM
I may be Aries.. But I'm NOTHING like the god of war !!

I prefer my Chinese One. I'm A dog ! (Some may say a Wolf .. or at least a Wulf ;) )


People born in the Year of the Dog possess the best traits of human nature. They have a deep sense of loyalty, are honest, and inspire other people's confidence because they know how to keep secrets (All true ;) ). But Dog People are somewhat selfish, terribly stubborn,(LIES ALL LIES!) and eccentric (no That's True). They care little for wealth, yet somehow always seem to have money (I wish! :sad: ). They can be cold emotionally (Shy yes.. cold? No!) and sometimes distant at parties.

Funnily enough. When I was a toddler My mum and dad used to think I thought I was a puppy. Because when I was crawling along the floor I'd turn round a few times before I sat down just like dogs do.

I also have to shave more and fight the odd urge to run on all fours and chase sheep when there's a full moon. No idea what that's all about :whistle:

Juju
23rd-June-2006, 11:14 PM
Crikey.

I thought this was going to be a light relief kinda thread... and then it went on... and on... and on.... People get terribly worked up about this sort of thing, don't they? Moral of the story is maybe not to get involved in the first place. ;)

(Incidentally, I do birth charts myself. Oh yes. But I figured out a long, long time ago that it's not worth banging on about it, because there's always someone who thinks they know better than me and they then (often very rudely) go on to tell me exactly why I don't know what I'm talking about and why it's a load of old crap, so I just ignore it now - I figure its their loss.)

(Btw, Ash! If you're reading this.... hiiiiii! Remember li'l old me?! Bangor and one Southport?! I still keep in touch with Helen, but that's it. Ah, those were the days. Jumpers for goalposts.)

littlewiggle
11th-July-2006, 06:31 PM
SCORPIO They are the sexbombs on the dance floor! Have you noticed their intense/hypnotic stare?! Their simmering passions can make them sensual and erotic, usually in a subtle way. (They don’t do things by halves and usually commit themselves 100% to any dance that interests them.)


Eh the quote thing hasn't worked?! But oooh this is me! :rolleyes: Watch out!

David Bailey
11th-July-2006, 07:08 PM
SCORPIO They are the sexbombs on the dance floor! Have you noticed their intense/hypnotic stare?! Their simmering passions can make them sensual and erotic, usually in a subtle way. (They don’t do things by halves and usually commit themselves 100% to any dance that interests them.)
:rofl: I admire someone who's willing to leap into the lion's den of this thread with such insouciance :clap:

So, 11/12ths of all dancers are sexless then...? :whistle:

ducasi
11th-July-2006, 07:12 PM
So, 11/12ths of all dancers are sexless then...? Where did you get that from?

You need to work on your logic – just because A => B, it doesn't mean that !A => !B. :rolleyes:

littlewiggle
11th-July-2006, 07:16 PM
:rofl: I admire someone who's willing to leap into the lion's den of this thread with such insouciance :clap:

So, 11/12ths of all dancers are sexless then...? :whistle:


:rofl: Yes I do that sometimes! But hey who cares! :D No of course they're not sexless just not as hot as Scorpios! :D

David Bailey
11th-July-2006, 07:19 PM
Where did you get that from?
"Scorpio are the sexbombs of the dancefloor" - that to me implies that other signs aren't the sexbombs of the dance floor.

The whole raison d'etre of these descriptions is to provide unique characteristics. So yes, it's an assumption, but I think it's a valid one. You're unlikely to see a description:
" Scorpio: they're sexbombs. Aries: they're sexbombs too. Cancer: they're also sexbombs. Libra: boy, they're sexbombs." Etc.

Barry Shnikov
11th-July-2006, 08:12 PM
:rofl: I admire someone who's willing to leap into the lion's den of this thread with such insouciance :clap:

So, 11/12ths of all dancers are sexless then...? :whistle:


WINNER

Palme d'or



Awarded for: use of the word insouciance in a modern jive dance forum.

Ash
11th-July-2006, 08:33 PM
Hi littlewiggle,

As you can imagine these are general descriptions...but from your full birthchart you can narrow it down considerably. One of the things you look for is the placement of Venus (the planet of 'love' and 'art')-which is probably in a completely different sign.

:)

David Bailey
11th-July-2006, 08:47 PM
Palme d'or

Shouldn't it be Palme D'Or(ange) ? :grin:


Awarded for: use of the word insouciance in a modern jive dance forum.
That's nothing - it took me 3 attempts to spell raison d'etre. I almost left it as raisin d'etre...

WittyBird
11th-July-2006, 11:56 PM
"Scorpio are the sexbombs of the dancefloor"

Tis true oh ye of little faith :D

Rebecca
12th-July-2006, 09:30 AM
Tis true oh ye of little faith :D

:yeah: :devil:

David Bailey
12th-July-2006, 11:07 AM
:yeah: :devil:
Oooh, what star sign are you then, huh? :innocent:

WittyBird
12th-July-2006, 11:41 AM
:yeah: :devil:

Well bugg@r me :eek:
Same name, dress, hair colour and star sign :rofl:

pmjd
12th-July-2006, 11:49 AM
Tis true oh ye of little faith :D

Prove it:whistle:

Did notice that the three water signs are the top three in this poll, or they're just the only ones who vote on stuff like this:wink:

Not that I'm being a cynical cancerian:devil:

WittyBird
12th-July-2006, 11:51 AM
Prove it:whistle:

Ok :rolleyes:
Get yer ass to London:D

pmjd
12th-July-2006, 11:53 AM
Ok :rolleyes:
Get yer ass to London:D

I'm working on it:wink:

littlewiggle
12th-July-2006, 12:32 PM
Hi littlewiggle,

As you can imagine these are general descriptions...but from your full birthchart you can narrow it down considerably. One of the things you look for is the placement of Venus (the planet of 'love' and 'art')-which is probably in a completely different sign.

:)


Oh no ...does that mean I can't be a sexbomb...:tears: Life is so unfair!:tears:

littlewiggle
12th-July-2006, 12:34 PM
Well bugg@r me :eek:
Same name, dress, hair colour and star sign :rofl:

Yep and me and Cruella are umbrella twins...we have the SAME birthday :nice:

Beowulf
12th-July-2006, 12:39 PM
Oh no ...does that mean I can't be a sexbomb...:tears: Life is so unfair!:tears:

never understood the term sexbomb myself..

unless ....

"look out she's about to blow!!!" :really: :eek:


:blush: I'll get my coat on the way out ...

Not met you have I LW? I'm sure you can be whatever you want to be :hug:

littlewiggle
12th-July-2006, 12:40 PM
never understood the term sexbomb myself..

unless ....

"look out she's about to blow!!!" :really: :eek:


:blush: I'll get my coat on the way out ...

Not met you have I LW? I'm sure you can be whatever you want to be :hug:

No we haven't met as yet! I am a typical Scorpio I know I am! :D

Cruella
12th-July-2006, 12:46 PM
SCORPIO They are the sexbombs on the dance floor! Have you noticed their intense/hypnotic stare?! Their simmering passions can make them sensual and erotic, usually in a subtle way. (They don’t do things by halves and usually commit themselves 100% to any dance that interests them.)

:rolleyes: Yep, thats me, subtle! :whistle:

Clueless
12th-July-2006, 01:35 PM
SAGITTARIUS Their enthusiasm and enjoyment of life comes over in their dancing: they want to have fun! They are also very theatrical because everything has to be larger than life. They can use flashy/revealing clothes to get their point across…and don’t like to be upstaged! Busby Berkeley is a famous archer

OK I would say this is partly true apart form the revealing part but I do wear bight clothes to make my presence known on the floor.

WittyBird
12th-July-2006, 01:40 PM
:rolleyes: Yep, thats me, subtle! :whistle:

you're to subtle as I am to quiet :whistle:

Little Em
12th-July-2006, 01:48 PM
you're to subtle as I am to quiet :whistle:





cough... splutters out drink!



:rofl:

pmjd
12th-July-2006, 01:49 PM
OK I would say this is partly true apart form the revealing part but I do wear bight clothes to make my presence known on the floor.

Is there something revealing in your wardrobe that your not telling us about:wink:

Anyway as for me..
CANCER They don’t like to draw attention to themselves and hate to be the wallflower. They’re hypersensitive about what other people think about their dancing. There are, of course, exceptions: Ginger Rogers.

Mmmm...don't know if that sums up my dancing or not:confused:

Clueless
12th-July-2006, 01:57 PM
Is there something revealing in your wardrobe that your not telling us about:wink:

Only if you ask nicely :waycool:

WittyBird
12th-July-2006, 02:11 PM
cough... splutters out drink!

Something to say Emma? :D

Ash
25th-July-2006, 01:16 PM
Star Wars astrology:

http://www.ophira.com/astrology/starwars.html

pmjd
25th-July-2006, 06:22 PM
Star Wars astrology:[/url]

I get Luke Skywalker:rofl:

Dazzler
25th-July-2006, 07:19 PM
Just a thought...but can anyone who has danced with me guess my star sign?

:whistle: :wink:

Piglet
25th-July-2006, 11:12 PM
Just a thought...but can anyone who has danced with me guess my star sign?

:whistle: :wink:
Oops what a shame - I like guessing games, but I just had a read of the results up top before reading your post... :rolleyes:

Dazzler
25th-July-2006, 11:38 PM
Oops what a shame - I like guessing games, but I just had a read of the results up top before reading your post... :rolleyes:


Oh bother...i never realised you could bloody do that! :rofl:

Oh well.....there goes that one!

Although i have to say i think i might just fit the bill for my sign :rofl:

quiet_flame
26th-July-2006, 06:03 AM
Star Wars astrology:

http://www.ophira.com/astrology/starwars.html
Hmmm... I get C3p0..
That's me at work... (he says having read this thread in its entirety from 9:00 in the morning getting very little else done until 3.00pm. *sigh*)
Back to the humdrum of the working life.

P.s. Being a child of Science, but from a family of astrologist/ numerologist/ chinese year/ rising sign/ juxtposition/ trined planetary alignments where so many of my planets were on cusp's when born...

I can happily say I'm a Virgo Rat with the rising sign of Scorpio (also a running trait in my family... they've all got scorpio somewhere):na:

sidney
26th-October-2006, 10:08 AM
I am a pisces, and that is me to a t as guys always say how light I am plus I do go dreamy when I am dancing.

David Bailey
26th-October-2006, 04:20 PM
I am a pisces, and that is me to a t as guys always say how light I am plus I do go dreamy when I am dancing.
:tears:

ducasi
26th-October-2006, 05:28 PM
:tears:
Prone to tears? Typical Libra. :rolleyes:

David Bailey
26th-October-2006, 08:02 PM
Prone to tears? Typical Libra. :rolleyes:
Bestrong mustresist theyrejusttryingtogetariseoutofyou...

Juju
26th-October-2006, 10:27 PM
Bestrong mustresist theyrejusttryingtogetariseoutofyou...

Like you can resist posting... on any thread.

Librans, pah! No willpower. :na:

Juju
30th-October-2006, 12:05 PM
*dangles thread tantalisingly infront of DJ*

Go on... you know you want to.... :yum:

TheTramp
30th-October-2006, 01:08 PM
Like you can resist posting... on any thread.

Librans, pah! No willpower. :na:

He's not great on the birthday ones.

Unless someone mentions wristbands! :rolleyes:

Trouble
30th-October-2006, 01:10 PM
He's not great on the birthday ones.

Unless someone mentions wristbands! :rolleyes:

Wristbands, whats wrong with wristbands. :D

David Bailey
30th-October-2006, 03:09 PM
Wristbands, whats wrong with wristbands. :D
They're against my religion.

Hey, I resisted 2 whole days...

Clueless
30th-October-2006, 03:21 PM
They're against my religion.

Hey, I resisted 2 whole days...

I used to have two wris bands but I got so used to wearing them I lost them when I moved :( but I can't go on with out a bangle thing or a sweat band on my wrist. :rolleyes:

Trouble
30th-October-2006, 03:56 PM
They're against my religion.

Hey, I resisted 2 whole days...

i think wristbands help the man see where his hands should be... :na:

TheTramp
30th-October-2006, 06:48 PM
I'm sure that there's a smutty answer to that! :innocent:

Clueless
30th-October-2006, 06:54 PM
i think wristbands help the man see where his hands should be... :na:

by his sides? :confused:

David Bailey
30th-October-2006, 09:01 PM
i think wristbands help the man see where his hands should be... :na:
At the end of the armies?

Juju
28th-November-2006, 11:58 AM
At the end of the armies?

That's handy.

(Sorry. :blush: )

StokeBloke
2nd-December-2006, 06:24 PM
Us Aquarians aren't taken in by all this zodiac mumbo jumbo :wink:

AngelGent
3rd-December-2006, 04:25 PM
What star signs are championship winning couples???

Is there any extra passion when a Libran (like myself) dances with a Libran? I know that dancing with Cancerians can be more challenging but once the hard shell is removed they tend to have a flair for great dancing!

David Bailey
3rd-December-2006, 08:10 PM
Christ, where's that "shoot-myself-in-the-head" icon when I really really need it...

Rebecca
8th-December-2006, 03:16 PM
DJ, that was AngelGent's first post :mad:

(see avatar)

David Bailey
8th-December-2006, 05:31 PM
DJ, that was AngelGent's first post :mad:
Oops. :blush:

AngelGent, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have snapped.

Please don't let grumpy old gits like me put you off posting. Even here :).

Lee Bartholomew
10th-December-2006, 10:32 AM
Oops. :blush:

AngelGent, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have snapped.

Please don't let grumpy old gits like me put you off posting. Even here :).

Ah you must be a typical *fit star sign in here* Lol.

David Bailey
10th-December-2006, 02:28 PM
Ah you must be a typical *fit star sign in here* Lol.
Yes, we've only had that joke about 6 times so far on this thread.

And it just keeps on getting funnier each time.

(I'm allowed to be mean to him, aren't I?)

Lee Bartholomew
10th-December-2006, 02:33 PM
(I'm allowed to be mean to him, aren't I?)

Why not, everyone else is.:tears:

LMC
11th-December-2006, 08:42 PM
Yes, we've only had that joke about 6 times so far on this thread.
I got in there first (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6136) :grin: Rather demoralisingly, I had to explain ...

Just to annoy DJ: is this the most voted on poll? - even beating all the Southport ones? I notice that my vote vanished somehow :( - so I'll do it again when this thread needs another gratuitous bump :whistle:

David Bailey
11th-December-2006, 08:46 PM
I got in there first (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6136) :grin: Rather demoralisingly, I had to explain ...

Just to annoy DJ: is this the most voted on poll? - even beating all the Southport ones? I notice that my vote vanished somehow :( - so I'll do it again when this thread needs another gratuitous bump :whistle:
The "age of Ceroc goers" one has it beat, 300+ on that one. Almost enough to be statistically interesting in fact.

Can't believe I'm perpetuating this thread...

LMC
11th-December-2006, 09:19 PM
Shall we send it outside?

Latin music is rubbish. All water signs say so.

pmjd
12th-December-2006, 12:25 AM
This water sign doesn't:wink:

Lee Bartholomew
12th-December-2006, 06:28 PM
i like latin music and im a water sign.

MartinHarper
12th-December-2006, 06:34 PM
It'd be fun to generate this chart:
http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?p=22410#post22410

for all forumites. It should provide conclusive evidence as to which star sign is most inclined towards dancing. Sadly I can't figure out how to sort the member list by birthday.

pmjd
12th-December-2006, 06:37 PM
How about going through the calendar and counting up the birthdays, if you feel like it:whistle:

LMC
12th-December-2006, 07:12 PM
It'd be fun to generate this chart:
http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?p=22410#post22410

Harperlink (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?p=149858#post149858) for Mr Harper :non-existent horribly smug smiley:

Juju
12th-December-2006, 08:28 PM
It'd be fun to generate this chart for all forumites. It should provide conclusive evidence as to which star sign is most inclined towards dancing. Sadly I can't figure out how to sort the member list by birthday.

Yes, but... then you're only using the sun signs and not taking into account the overall tenor of the birthchart - the combination of the sun, moon, rising sign, etc. etc. (for example, I'm included on here as an Aries but my birthchart is chockful of water signs), plus there's the problem of signs changing at slightly different times every year, and then I'm not really sure which particular aspects you might want to investigate, as there'll be combinations which taken together might indicate an inclination towards and/or skill at dancing... I mean, astrologically speaking, it's a minefield....

:D

MartinHarper
15th-December-2006, 12:34 PM
Ta LMC.


Yes, but... then you're only using the sun signs and not taking into account the overall tenor of the birthchart

Statistics is magic. Such random variables will average out over a sufficiently large sample size. What I do need to take into account is the distribution of star signs in the general populace, given that more people get born in Spring.

Clueless
15th-December-2006, 07:27 PM
I remeber stats from doing my honou project and it is true waht my father told me:

"There are lies, Damn lies and Statistics"

I was told to do two sets of results one way and then a completely different way for the 3rd set to make the results 'significant' :rolleyes:

Juju
16th-December-2006, 12:24 PM
Statistics is magic.

... another one of those phrases I thought I'd never hear....

Astro
23rd-December-2006, 07:13 PM
Which star sign favours the dancer etc., or dancing partnership[/quote]


Pisces rules the feet astrologically.
Thus Pisces rules dancing.

Mr Cool
24th-December-2006, 03:19 PM
Its quite clear only true bald headed Scorpio men:wink: can lead a lady with style and panache and musicality.:wink:
merry christmas every body.

:waycool: :waycool: :waycool:

An:hug:

dy

rubyred
24th-December-2006, 04:35 PM
Of course the Leo's of the dancing world are natural born show offs, have loads of personality, charisma and love to play to the audience. :whistle:


Happy Christmas

XXXXX

:hug:

Minnie M
24th-December-2006, 05:26 PM
And Aries are natural born leaders (Churchill, Maggie etc.,) even the women make good 'leaders' :whistle:

DavidY
5th-February-2007, 04:59 PM
I came across an interesting article in New Scientist from 27th Jan 2007. Unfortunately I can only link to the start of the article (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19325881.700-born-under-a-bad-sign.html).
There is firm evidence that the time of year you are born affects not just your personality, but also your health, specifically your chances of developing serious mental illness.

Being born at certain times of year gives a small but significantly increased risk of problems such as depression, schizophrenia and anorexia nervosa. The question is no longer if the seasons affect mental health, but how.
~snip~
We now know that for people born in the northern hemisphere in February, March and April, the risk of developing schizophrenia is between 5 and 10 per cent higher than for those born at other times of the year. The effect has been replicated numerous times over the decades and is far from trivial. According to a study carried out at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, the increased risk of schizophrenia that comes with a winter birthday is almost twice the increase in risk linked to having a parent or sibling with the disorder.

Season of birth seems to be linked to other conditions, too. A recent study of more than 25,000 suicides in England and Wales found that 17 per cent more people who had committed suicides had birthdays in April, May and June than in the rest of the year. That's late spring and early summer in the northern hemisphere. Similarly people with anorexia in the northern hemisphere are 13 per cent more likely to have been born between April and June than in other months. That doesn't necessarily mean it's best to be born later in the year, however. Autumn birthdays are associated with an 8 per cent increase in the likelihood of suffering panic attacks, for example, and a small but significant increase in alcoholism in men.
~snip~
[In a study of 950 people by Jayanti Chotai from Sweden] novelty seekers were more often born in April or May.:whistle:

David Bailey
5th-February-2007, 05:51 PM
I came across an interesting article in New Scientist from 27th Jan 2007. Unfortunately I can only link to
Interesting - but nothing to do with astrology, of course, which talks about planetary signs not seasons.

The obvious question is whether this effect is replicated in the southern hemisphere? If so, then it's provably nothing to do with star signs.

DavidY
5th-February-2007, 06:06 PM
Interesting - but nothing to do with astrology, of course, which talks about planetary signs not seasons.

The obvious question is whether this effect is replicated in the southern hemisphere? If so, then it's provably nothing to do with star signs.As it says in the link, there's only one star that they are suggesting has anything to do with it - the sun. The possible causes of the patterns mentioned include melatonin, vitamin D, temperature.

The article doesn't mention replicating all the effects in the Southern Hemisphere, but it does say the effect on anorexia seems to be reproduced in Australia in the opposite months (they suggest it's temperature dependent so the number of months' window for anorexia was different as the study was in a part of Australia warmer than the UK).

Barry Shnikov
5th-February-2007, 06:10 PM
{quoting elsewhence}A recent study of more than 25,000 suicides in England and Wales found that 17 per cent more people who had committed suicides had birthdays in April, May and June than in the rest of the year.

That's not even a meaningful sentence. Does it mean, for example, that 41½% of suicides were born between July and March, and 58½% in April May and June? Or does it mean that the number of suicides born in that three month period exceeds the average of the other three three-month periods by 17%? Or one of the other possible meanings lying in wait?

What is it about journalists that when presented with statistics they start tripping over their grammar? It isn't difficult to be clear, criminy.

Perfectly possible that the time of year you are born affects your character.

David Bailey
5th-February-2007, 09:41 PM
What is it about journalists that when presented with statistics they start tripping over their grammar? It isn't difficult to be clear, criminy.
Reminds me of that Dilbert cartoon, when the Pointy-Haired Boss complains that a shockingly-high 40% of work illness absences happened on a Monday or a Friday :rolleyes:

Clueless
7th-February-2007, 09:58 PM
:yeah: :worthy: :cheers:

Astro
24th-February-2007, 07:47 PM
DJ, does your new avatar reveal you as an arrogant LEO the lion?:whistle:

Double Trouble
24th-February-2007, 08:38 PM
DJ, does your new avatar reveal you as an arrogant LEO the lion?:whistle:

Nah...he just wishes he had as much hair as the lion in the picture.:D