Are Astrology Devotees SubHuman?

[David Sklansky]

I was castigated for making that statement on another thread and quickly backtracked to avoid a side issue being debated.

Subhuman or not, they are complete imbeciles. At least if I understand the subject correctly.

Although I have implied otherwise at times, the fact is that believing in astrology is even worse than believing in a specfic religion. One reason of course is that religions usually come with moral implications while astrology doesn't. The other reason is that, if I'm not mistaken, astrology makes specific claims and those claims have been completely refuted.

I believe that statistical studies have been made about the validity of any predictions made by astrologers and the results are no better than chance would predict. When astologers are asked to guess what sign a person is based on meeting them and assessing their personalities, they are right one in twelve. The underlying thoery of astrology, the change in gravity due to the alignment of the planets and the stars, is nonsensical since that gravity has less force than the computer you are sitting in front of.

Now if someone just has a sort of fun time with astrology while never being told about the scientific refutations they are not subhuman or even necessarily stupid. But what about those who seriously cling to these beliefs in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it which they are aware of? (Again I stress that I am not an expert on astrology or its researchers. So if there is a serious factual error, this whole post is irrelevant).

A serious devotee of astrology, who is aware of the science and the statistics, deserves contempt and a bad name. Perhaps subhuman is not the right word. But something similar is, in my opinion. To show how strongly I feel about this subject I will say that I would never marry someone who fully believed in astrology regardless of the evidence. To make it even more clear, if I had to choose between my son being an astrology believer all his life or a heroin addict all his life, I would choose the latter. (Anticipating your next question I would choose Catholicism over heroin for him, but not Born Again Christianity).

[A_C_Slater]

Arbeit Macht Frei!

[SmileyEH]

This is one of my favorite posts ever.

-SmileyEH

[malorum]

Wow,
Some emotion there. I have not seen the studies concerned. Usually in this sort of debate studies on both sides exist.
From a human point of view it would be very unusual if no studies existed that supported astrology. No matter how wacko an idea is, an appropriate misunderstanding of statistical analysis can usually be applied to support it.

Just to give you some more ammo against fundie christians like me tho': It's worth noting that Melancthon one of the Lutheran fathers believed in Astrology, and that in the Book of Job the bible appears to make clear reference to astrology.

The bit about heroin addicts is a little dubious. I have had the misfortune to meet one or two (since deceased) and would not wish this for anyones future.

While as a christian I might suggest that astrology could lead you into the occult and get your soul damned or something, I observe that heroin appears ultimately to remove the soul/humanity of the addict.

I note also that "all his life" is likely to refer to a very different timespans in the two references you make to it, perhaps you considered this in your evaluation of the relative utility of the two activities.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

anyone who beilves strongly in anything that has been overwhelming refuted is an idiot. For example, people who think online poker is rigged (this is a special case cause even if they were 100% correct they are idiots for continuing to play). Simple logic shows that online poker is clearly not rigged (as well as overwhelming evidence from statistics).

[Roy Munson]

I wouldn't say that Astrology Devotees are SubHuman. They are however quite an irrational lot more commonly known as women.

I have never known a man to lend any credence to astrology. On the other hand I have known many women who believe in this crap to varying degrees.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't say that Astrology Devotees are SubHuman. They are however quite an irrational lot more commonly known as women.

I have never known a man to lend any credence to astrology. On the other hand I have known many women who believe in this crap to varying degrees.

[/ QUOTE ]

women lack logic. I would like to hear sklansky's pov on women and logic. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[chezlaw]

Three questions:

if heroin is illegal should astrology also be illegal?

What punishment would you advocate for astrology pushers?

Did you once go back for your bag and regret it?

chez

[Prevaricator]

they are imbeciles, but they are also no different from people who believe the bible is the literal word of god.

[TomCollins]

There is one extremely small chance of some validity to astrology.

Those born in September are likely to be the oldest in their school class when growing up, and more mature. Those born in May and June are more likely to be the youngest and less mature. How being younger/older than those you are around probably does have some affect. There have been studies that noted that eldest siblings have some traits (such as being leaders and rebels more often), while middle children have others, and youngest siblings have other traits more often. The effects within a single year are less apparent. But it might have some effects.

So the astrologists might get some things correct just out of dumb luck, even though their reasoning is completely bogus.

[PairTheBoard]

I once had a nice jewish girlfriend whose sister was a 2200 rated tournament chess player and whose father was some kind of financial genius. Unfortunately she was a hard core Astrologer/Numerologist with a specialty in numerology. She was very nice in every way except for how she brought numerology into everything we did. "Oh did you see the 17 leaves on the 9th branch of that tree? Do you know what THAT means"? I quickly found this intollerable. However I would have much preferred her for a girlfriend than a practicing heroin addict.

From what I've seen of serious Astrology Practitioners they seem little harmed by it. They are happy in their little circles of fellow believers. They certainly will never go anyplace in reputable academia but they aren't likely to die of hot doses, dirty needles, or unusually common obstruction of the bowels.

I do not know if they have reasonable answers to the statistical studies. I imagine they come up with something that takes the discussion out of the realm of hard science and into the realm of mysticism, but I'm no expert. If the language they use is understood as mystical rather than scientific then they are like any other religion. If they insist they have science that contradicts evidence then the psychological state they are in is either strange or dishonest or maybe strangely dishonest. Whatever it is, they seem to enjoy it and people seem attracted to it.

Here's the thing though. Just as I could not tollerate a girlfriend who constantly brought numerology into everything, I doubt I could tollerate a girlfriend who constantly brought technical issues of logic and EV into everything. Sometimes it's healthy to give logic a rest and engage in a little whimsy. Some people like that direction so much they devote themselves to it, study it, develop it, teach it, and live it. There is much more to being a human being than logic and EV. Part of humanity's strength is the way different people specialize in different aspects of the human condition. Sitting on top of the tower of your specialty and calling those exhibiting other aspects of the human condition subhuman, or imbiciles, just shows a lack of understanding of what it means to be human.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

"Sometimes it's healthy to give logic a rest and engage in a little whimsy."

Listen carefully because this is very important. Logic and whimsy are not about the same stuff. Being "logical" is not the same thing as being "sensible". It is simply a procedure that makes sure that two statements do not contradict each other. It makes no claim as to which statement is true, if either is. It simply will sometimes point out that they can't both be true using rules of deduction that YOU agree to.

Almost no one will adhere to blatently contradictory ideas. Zero Mexicans bowl well. My friend Jose averages 220. My friend Jose is Mexican. Anyone would feel ridiculous saying those three things. However when the chain of reasoning connecting two thoughts, indisputable as it may be, is sufficiently long and/or complex, people, especially those weak in logic, will sometimes hold to both thoughts even when they are as contradictory as the Mexican example. Yet the only difference is the complexity of the proof. And again we are specifying that the rules governing the chain of reasoning are agreed to even by those who have trouble following along.

The bottom line is that how logical and how whimsical you are need not be related. If you believe in the tooth fairy you are not being illogical. Unless you also believe in other facts that will lead to (using rules of deduction that you agree to) the non existence of such tooth fairy.

[jason1990]

Belief in astrology can be very damaging. If your only exposure to astrology is the horoscopes in the newspaper, then it may seem like it only makes vague, mostly positive predictions. But this is not universally true. Sometimes astrologers make very specific and very negative predictions. This can cause serious emotional trauma to the subject of the prediction (if they believe in it, of course).

There are entire cultures that believe in astrology. They teach it to their children from a very young age. As the children get older, especially those of the current generation who are exposed to more of the world, they often realize that those beliefs are hogwash. But I'd bet that most of them -- even those that are mathematical/logical geniuses -- are affected by those old beliefs in some way or another, perhaps subconsciously.

Maybe in America, astrology is all about people believing in silly stuff because they're imbeciles. But in general, this is a much bigger issue than that.

[FreakDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]

A serious devotee of astrology, who is aware of the science and the statistics, deserves contempt and a bad name. Perhaps subhuman is not the right word. But something similar is, in my opinion. To show how strongly I feel about this subject I will say that I would never marry someone who fully believed in astrology regardless of the evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

If evidence proved that astrology was correct, you still wouldn't marry someone? That seems a bit silly.

I think the basic premise of astrology actually has a lot of validity. The premise being that there are 12 archetypes of humanity, and out of those twelve there is a ratio that relates to the planetary alignment and the nature of the person being born.

The Greeks for instance showed that there was a relationship between the diatonic scale and the number of planets in our solar system. To spare the boring scholarly details, the conclusion was that in essence the cosmos was music. Now I'll take a leap of faith and assume that you understand the relationship between music and math. If these relationships do indeed exist (math,music,planets), then how is it not conceivable that there may be a relationship that can be explained about the nature of particular human archetypes based on planetary alignment.

I think where the whole astrology thing (at least in modern times) falls apart in that it's quite difficult to collate all this data into a systematic and understandable system. There are so many people INTERPRETING this data based on their own loose experience, that it becomes quite skewed an inaccurate.

I consider myself a fairly rational person, but I definitely wouldn't rule out the fact that astrology, if accurately understood, could indeed be quite valid. Do I think most of it is today? No. Yet some of the ancient readings are quite interesting, especially Tibetan astrology for example.

It's quite unfortunate that you're closing your mind so quickly to the possibility of truth. Wouldn't it be better to claim ignorance, and be open to learning something new?

[PLOlover]

Are you disparaging Ron and Nancy Reagan?

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]

The Greeks for instance showed that there was a relationship between the diatonic scale and the number of planets in our solar system.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are at least 9 planets in our solar system and only 8 notes in the diatonic scale.

What's the relation? What proof is there that if there is a relation, it's not casual?

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you disparaging Ron and Nancy Reagan?

[/ QUOTE ]

And Mexican bowlers too?

[andyfox]

Don't you see that you've just demonstrated the wisdom of Pair the Board's post?

[andyfox]

"if I had to choose between my son being an astrology believer all his life or a heroin addict all his life, I would choose the latter."

How sad. Even sadder because you're not even sure you understand astrology correctly.

[andyfox]

I wonder if David voted for Reagan the second time, after it was revealed that he made some decisions based on the advice of Nancy's astrologer.

[andyfox]

"The Greeks for instance showed that there was a relationship between the diatonic scale and the number of planets in our solar system."

How can that relationship have been accurate, since the Greeks did not know the number of planets in our solar system (and there is disagreement today about the correct number)?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The Greeks for instance showed that there was a relationship between the diatonic scale and the number of planets in our solar system.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are at least 9 planets in our solar system and only 8 notes in the diatonic scale.

What's the relation? What proof is there that if there is a relation, it's not casual?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pluto's not a planet. It's a SubPlanet, also known as an Imbecile Planet.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

DS --
"If you believe in the tooth fairy you are not being illogical. "

Now you're talking DS.

PTB

[Zeno]

I read something recently about a Tenth planet, beyond pluto. And perhaps more planets are lurking about in the darkness awaiting discoverey by better and more accurate insturments or procedures.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

Been reading any P.G. Wodehouse?

-Zeno

[FreakDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The Greeks for instance showed that there was a relationship between the diatonic scale and the number of planets in our solar system.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are at least 9 planets in our solar system and only 8 notes in the diatonic scale.

What's the relation? What proof is there that if there is a relation, it's not casual?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse my mis-step, I meant there was a relationship between the diatonic scale and the distance of the planets. I've been half asleep today. /images/graemlins/smile.gif There should be tons of info on the web about this.

[BZ_Zorro]

Great post.

When people ask my star sign I always give them the wrong one. It's amusing to watch them make total fools of themselves analyzing my 'Leo' personality (I'm actually a libra - we're known to be tricky /images/graemlins/wink.gif ).

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Been reading any P.G. Wodehouse?

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

First I've heard of him. I googled to see what he's about. Sounds like a fun read but probably over my head. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

PairTheBoard

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
To make it even more clear, if I had to choose between my son being an astrology believer all his life or a heroin addict all his life, I would choose the latter. (Anticipating your next question I would choose Catholicism over heroin for him, but not Born Again Christianity).

[/ QUOTE ]

Astrology is bad but not that bad, I would rather have a son who was a Astrology believer than a heroin addict, as for Catholics.......well heroin is bad but not that bad.

Mack

[David Sklansky]

"To show how strongly I feel about this subject I will say that I would never marry someone who fully believed in astrology regardless of the evidence."


"If evidence proved that astrology was correct, you still wouldn't marry someone? That seems a bit silly."

In case you are not joking, I meant that they believed in astrology regardless of the evidence aginst astrology.

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The Greeks for instance showed that there was a relationship between the diatonic scale and the number of planets in our solar system.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are at least 9 planets in our solar system and only 8 notes in the diatonic scale.

What's the relation? What proof is there that if there is a relation, it's not casual?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse my mis-step, I meant there was a relationship between the diatonic scale and the distance of the planets. I've been half asleep today. /images/graemlins/smile.gif There should be tons of info on the web about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no "the" diatonic scale. A diatonic scale is just a scale with 8 tones, where the eighth tone is the octave of the first. Major and Minor scales fall into this category (blues and pentatonics, for example, do not).

I'm pretty certain that the distance between the planets is exponential. If that's the case, I cannot imagine any possible relation between those distances and any scale playable by any western/classical instrument.

In distances, the major scale would be: 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1. The minor is similar: 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2.

It's going to be really hard for a diatonic scale to get exponential. You've got 12 steps in there and you need to hit 8 distinct tones.

So in other words, this sounds like hogwash to me.

[David Sklansky]

"if I had to choose between my son being an astrology believer all his life or a heroin addict all his life, I would choose the latter."

"How sad. Even sadder because you're not even sure you understand astrology correctly."

Do I have to spell out that the statement is going under the assumption that astrology is what I think it is? Cmon. I should spell out though that I'm talking about a heroin addiction that doesn't completely rob you of your faculties and the ability to think straight. I've known people like that. I wasn't talking about living on the streets of the Bowery barely remembering your name.

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]

Do I have to spell out that the statement is going under the assumption that astrology is what I think it is? Cmon. I should spell out though that I'm talking about a heroin addiction that doesn't completely rob you of your faculties and the ability to think straight. I've known people like that. I wasn't talking about living on the streets of the Bowery barely remembering your name.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying you'd rather have a generally logical son who's addicted to heroin rather than an idiot of a son who buys into astrology?

If that's the case, I can understand where you're coming from; you can kick an addiction, but idiocy lasts a lifetime. That isn't made too clear in your first post, however.

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
Listen carefully because this is very important. Logic and whimsy are not about the same stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Sometimes it's healthy to give logic a rest and engage in a little whimsy. Some people like that direction so much they devote themselves to it, study it, develop it, teach it, and live it. There is much more to being a human being than logic and EV. Part of humanity's strength is the way different people specialize in different aspects of the human condition. Sitting on top of the tower of your specialty and calling those exhibiting other aspects of the human condition subhuman, or imbiciles, just shows a lack of understanding of what it means to be human."

Pair is telling you that despite having learned a high of math at an early age, you can still put your pocket protector and slide-rule down once in awhile and not be so wound up.

I however, believe that you are just trolling for amusement. You have no further ideas for books. You are bored from playing your 140+ IQ level cash games. You play tournaments just to help market 2+2.

So all you have left to do is to troll. And troll well, I might add /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[thejameser]

the construction of our society seems to condone various types of distractions from reality. astrology seems to be one of these distractions.

[jakethebake]

David,

You must be a Leo or a Virgo. This kind of thinking is typical of them.

[kleos]

Honeslty, heroin addicts in their most depraved state aren't that upsetting once you've seen someone try and quit methadone.

[SL__72]

Astology is not all bad... (http://www.theonion.com/horoscopes/)

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
To make it even more clear, if I had to choose between my son being an astrology believer all his life or a heroin addict all his life, I would choose the latter. (Anticipating your next question I would choose Catholicism over heroin for him, but not Born Again Christianity .)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most disturbing statement of all.

[andyfox]

Let's assume astrology is what you (and I) think it is. Namely, ridiculous, and shows an illogical mind at work. I still think it's sad that a father would condemn his son to heroin addiction than to have him think illogically about something. I imagine you would say that thinking illogically about astrology would mean that surely the person so thinking would also have to think illogically about other things as well. It ain't necessarily so. And, if it is necessarily so, so what? Many people who don't think as logically as you live happy, productive, satisfyng, generous lives. There are also many people who think logically but proceed from false precepts who live unhappy, unproductive, unsatisfying, selfish lives. The ability to think logically, I agree, is more important than most people consider it to be. But it's not anywhere near as important as you consider it to be. The fact that you would rather have your son addicted to heroin is defense exhibit A.

I'd much rather have a son with Tommy Angeloitis than David Sklanskyitis.

[BettyBoopAA]

While I'm not a believer in Astrology, I'm a little more open minded to it. I have met several people who are into Astology and none of them try to predict the future, they're not psychics.
But with someone's Birthday, exact time and location they can get a good picture of someone's personality and what makes them tick.
David, have you ever had your chart done(shows where every planet was at the time of birth. I bet you a good Astologer could analyze your general personality and hit the nail on the head.

Hey Dave...I just had to sign up for this forum so I could come on and read your posts. See I heard about your idiocy all the way out here in non-internet land where I live. Anyways, I'd just like to say that if Jesus were here today he'd probably punch you right in the face.
Have a nice day. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[dragon14]

I have never known or met anyone who was a serious devotee of astrology. Quite a few women ask about people's signs and have some general theories about what type of a person someone is based on their sign. None of these women I've known returned repeatedly to the theme of astrology while I knew them.

I don't think that serious devotees are large in number and my impression is that nearly all whom are interested in astrologers and psychics are women (probably due to women's increased interest in understanding men since men aren't as emotionally open as women. Therefore, they wish to fill in the gaps and sometimes resort to dubious methods to do so.

Most people who use psychics or look at their horoscope are simply interested in adding a little spice to their day. If something adds a little surprise or interest to your day it doesn't seem to be that big a deal to me.

Who exactly are these people who are aware of the science and statistics who still are devotees of astrology? Can you name anyone who is not a con man who fits into this category? You may as well attack fortune cookie devotees.

Idiot and imbecile are terms used to describe degrees of severe mental retardation. It would be more appropriate to use a term such as highly irrational to describe such a person.

You seem to generally hold two conflicting points of view. First through your books and your posts here you seem to have a great appreciation for your own intellect. You claim to have the ability to win a Nobel Prize, brag about how other top poker players don't understand what the optimal plays are, and brag of your ability to reframe questions in a unique and interesting way. That's fine by me and is probably true to a high degree.

On the other hand you frequently seem to have derision for others who are not highly logical thinkers or seem to have some supernatural or religious beliefs. You have to understand that by being endowed with high intelligence you have a higher degree of understanding than others. It seems like you should be more grateful for your own talents and more accepting of others for their limitations.

You can't keep saying "I'm a genius" and alternately that everyone else is a idiot. A more accurate version would be for you to think "I'm very bright and logical" and that others are closer to average with regards to intelligence and logic.

[David Sklansky]

"I imagine you would say that thinking illogically about astrology would mean that surely the person so thinking would also have to think illogically about other things as well. It ain't necessarily so. And, if it is necessarily so, so what? Many people who don't think as logically as you live happy, productive, satisfyng, generous lives."

Being a serious devotee of astrology probably means you think illogically. Let's stipulate to that. But the reason I choose being a functional heroin addict for my son over being an astrology devotee is not mereley because they are illogical. I would reluctantly prefer he be illogical if it was benign. I choose heroin addiction over VOCAL illogic. Most people who don't think well kinda know it. And they tend to defer to those who they realize think better. But there are those few who hold ridiculous ideas and proclaim them to the world, knowing full well that almost all highly educated people say its hogwash. Some of those who call in to radio talk shows are good examples.

Still I do admit its close. Else why why I have said Cathlocism is preferable to heroin addiction?

As to Tommy Angelitis. I see he is teaching poker now. TEACHING. For money. If his lessons make you lose instead of win (not saying they do) and he rips people off, would you still prefer your son to be him rather than an arrogant guy who actually helps people?

[FreakDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
"To show how strongly I feel about this subject I will say that I would never marry someone who fully believed in astrology regardless of the evidence."


"If evidence proved that astrology was correct, you still wouldn't marry someone? That seems a bit silly."

In case you are not joking, I meant that they believed in astrology regardless of the evidence aginst astrology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your sentence structure indicates that you were talking about the subject 'I', so I didn't want to make the assumption otherwise. It's clear now.

[David Sklansky]

"Many people who don't think as logically as you live happy, productive, satisfyng, generous lives"

Don't think as logically as me, or think as illogically as an astrology devotee? Not quite the same thing. The people who actually think very illogically are much less apt to lead happy, productive, satisfying, generous lives. Because they are constantly faced with decisions in their life. And if you aren't logical you are much more apt to screw up when making decisions to reach your goals, whatever they may be.

Those who do pull off a measure of success can thank their lucky stars they live in a country like ours where there is such abundance and opportunies for second and third chances. Your comments about illogical people are completely off the mark for poorer countries or in history. When survival of the fittest plays a part, illogical people are almost drawing dead.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Those who do pull off a measure of success can thank their lucky stars they live in a country like ours where there is such abundance and opportunies for second and third chances. Your comments about illogical people are completely off the mark for poorer countries or in history. When survival of the fittest plays a part, illogical people are almost drawing dead.


[/ QUOTE ]

How well will the lifetime heroin addict do in these poorer countries/times?

chez

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif the way the planets are aligned tonite does not bode well for you davey; gl

/images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[andyfox]

Everybody who works is doing something for money. Tommy doesn't guarantee he'll make you money. He says he'll give you advice. You should be able to dfetemine if it's good or bad. He's not ripping you off if his advice is bad. Unless he's making false claims, caveat emptor. In my own business, I frequently will choose a less qualified employee who is also less arrogant.

I don't see the world as black and white as you see it. If Tommy's advice nets out making his students money, it probably means some of his advice is great, some not so great, some bad. If it nets out losing his students money, it probably means less of is is great or not so great and more of it bad. As for the arrogant guy that helps people, it depends on how much he helps and what the help is. If the help earns me another few dollars an hour playing poker, it's no big deal. I'll take a poorer teacher who is not insufferable. If it cures cancer, then I'd forbear the arrogance.

[andyfox]

In poorer countries, politics plays a much more significant role in people's live than whether they can think logically or not. The deck is stacked against them and the situation is more accurately described as survivial of the better connected than suvival of the fittest.

I agree with the good points you make in your first paragraph.

[David Sklansky]

"In poorer countries, politics plays a much more significant role in people's live than whether they can think logically or not. The deck is stacked against them and the situation is more accurately described as survivial of the better connected than suvival of the fittest."

Cmon. Why do you try to wriggle away from my point? Even if what you say is factually true it is irrelevant to what we are debating. Namely that being illogical handicaps you much more than the evidence that twenty first century America might suggest

Also I think that rather than using the term VOCALLY illogical I should say rather STUBBORNLY illogical. People who are opinionated about many things including the unimportance of formal logic. Despite having a pretty good idea about what logic is.

[kurosh]

Only you would want intelligence and logic over health and happiness for your child. I don't know if that's disgusting or beautiful.

[andyfox]

"Cmon. Why do you try to wriggle away from my point?"

Because you're making too much of it. Being illogical probably handicaps you much less than 21st century America might suggest. Your contention that, if you can do the math, you can do most anything, ignores the real world. Not being able to do the math means almost nothing in poorer countries because being able to do the math means almost nothing in the face of politics. Change has come not from the logical, but from those who stirred men's souls.

In many precapitalist agrarian societies, there are many superficially odd practices that make sense as disguised forms of insurance. Rather than live up to the economists' model of rational, economic man, peasants prefer to minimize risk as a sort of "safety-first" principle. But the mathematicians and [social] scientists, by treating these people as would be entrepreneurs, miss their key existential dilemma. And the political scientists, with their power-maximizing asumptions, fail to understand these people's political behavior as well. And they all come to the conclusion that capitalism and democracy and a modern society will make life better for these people. After all, they're just like us, aren't they? They plug in the formulas and come up with solutions based on the numbers. A famous example is Robert McNamara in Vietnam. What he knew worked great at Ford Motor Company, but proved disastrous in Vietnam. Because no amount of math or logic can overcome GIGO.

How about this? I agree that if you can do the math, you probably have the ability to do anything. But just knowing the math is not enough. And thinking that just knowing the math is enough is as bad as not knowing the math.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Change has come not from the logical, but from those who stirred men's souls.


[/ QUOTE ]

You can use logic to stir men's souls.

The rise of Science from say Galileo on is a general proof against your statement. And in the main, the rise of science has been a large net benefit (a positive change) for mankind. It is also easy to 'stir men's souls' with bad ideas and silly notions, especially when 'the logical' is absent, to produce 'evil' change, or maintain systems that are largely inimical to progress or are a net loss for mankind. You know enough history to be fully aware of this rather ugly fact and which systems are most guility of the above.

I was most reticent to interject into the middle of your debate but I thought it necessary.

I will now dissovle into the background again and the regular scheduled program can resume.

-Zeno

[David Sklansky]

"Not being able to do the math means almost nothing in poorer countries because being able to do the math means almost nothing in the face of politics. Change has come not from the logical, but from those who stirred men's souls."

You are just so romantically silly. Most change for the better comes from improved technology, medicine, etc. And politics is going to override logical ability in only a small number of cases. If you can build a bridge, operate a computer, or take out an appendix a lot better than someone whose politics are more to the liking of the powers that be, they will still hire you in all but the most totalaritarian states.

"In many precapitalist agrarian societies, there are many superficially odd practices that make sense as disguised forms of insurance. Rather than live up to the economists' model of rational, economic man, peasants prefer to minimize risk as a sort of "safety-first" principle. But the mathematicians and [social] scientists, by treating these people as would be entrepreneurs, miss their key existential dilemma. And the political scientists, with their power-maximizing asumptions, fail to understand these people's political behavior as well. And they all come to the conclusion that capitalism and democracy and a modern society will make life better for these people. After all, they're just like us, aren't they? They plug in the formulas and come up with solutions based on the numbers. A famous example is Robert McNamara in Vietnam. What he knew worked great at Ford Motor Company, but proved disastrous in Vietnam. Because no amount of math or logic can overcome GIGO."

What's all this have to do with what I'm saying? Which is again that those who are good at logic (and thus more likely to study the technological subjects that require logic) figure to have a much better chance to be among the few who have a good life in a poor country.

"How about this? I agree that if you can do the math, you probably have the ability to do anything. But just knowing the math is not enough. And thinking that just knowing the math is enough is as bad as not knowing the math."

So what are we arguing about?

[FreakDaddy]

You're coming in the middle of a response and taking something out of context. I was refering back to THE greek diatonic scale, which was in my original post. And actually diatonic scales have 7 notes (I don't know too many music teachers that call and octave a note), which was the number of known planets at the time of the greeks.

I'm going to bed for now, but here are several links I googled that may help you in cleaning your hogwash up.

One (http://www.music.sc.edu/fs/bain/atmi02/pst/)

Two (http://home.comcast.net/~sean.day/art-history.htm)

Three (http://home.comcast.net/~sean.day/html/history.htm)

Four (http://www.spiritofra.com/Sound.htm)

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
You're coming in the middle of a response and taking something out of context. I was refering back to THE greek diatonic scale, which was in my original post. And actually diatonic scales have 7 notes (I don't know too many music teachers that call and octave a note), which was the number of known planets at the time of the greeks.

I'm going to bed for now, but here are several links I googled that may help you in cleaning your hogwash up.

One (http://www.music.sc.edu/fs/bain/atmi02/pst/)

Two (http://home.comcast.net/~sean.day/art-history.htm)

Three (http://home.comcast.net/~sean.day/html/history.htm)

Four (http://www.spiritofra.com/Sound.htm)

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that I included the octave doesn't change my point. There aren't 7 planets. There are at least 9. Any relation the greeks found between the known 7 planets and anything to do with music is entirely coincidental or contrived.

Your original point seemed to be that there might be something to astrology since there is some link between the cosmos and music. I'm showing that there exists no such link between the two. Do you disagree?

edit:

Here is the post I am referring to:
[ QUOTE ]
The Greeks for instance showed that there was a relationship between the diatonic scale and the number of planets in our solar system. To spare the boring scholarly details, the conclusion was that in essence the cosmos was music. Now I'll take a leap of faith and assume that you understand the relationship between music and math. If these relationships do indeed exist (math,music,planets), then how is it not conceivable that there may be a relationship that can be explained about the nature of particular human archetypes based on planetary alignment.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you disagree with me, I would ask you to go into those "boring scholarly details" that show that the "cosmos is music".

If you somehow manage to do that (you won't be able to), you've got about 30 other steps you need to explain before anyone with any logical capacity will seriously consider what you're saying.

[andyfox]

Interject away. Reticence, from you? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I was referring to political change in the context of David and my discussion about the poorer parts of the world.

[andyfox]

Of course I was referring to political change. Twentieth century political figures as diverse as Franklin Roosevelt, Adolph Hitler, and Mohandas Ghandi stirred men's souls, for better or worse.

What all "this" had to do with what you were saying is that you place an extraoridnary amout of confidence in the ability of those with logical abilitites to change the world for the better. I was trying to show how knowing the math can breed an hubris that can be worse than illogic.

But since we're in agreement on the last paragraph of mine that you quoted, end of discussion.

[BTW, thanks for using the euphemistic phrase "romantically silly." You've made a lot of progress with me, now I can think I've made a tad with you too /images/graemlins/wink.gif]

[andyfox]

Just glanced at Daniel Negreanu's response in your thread about him, and he is kind of saying the same things I've been saying, albeit in a different context. Your response there certainly applies here too.

[FreakDaddy]

I don't see you showing anything. You're making a statement that you don't believe what I'm saying. Actually quite rudly you have stated that it's plain hogwash. Polite and respectful people may instead ask a question if they have never heard of such a concept, or have doubt about it's validity. Since you've done neither, I really don't wish to waste my time with someone being so hostile. I've provided links to some of these concepts, if you have questions about them, then please politely ask and I will be happy to answer.

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see you showing anything. You're making a statement that you don't believe what I'm saying. Actually quite rudly you have stated that it's plain hogwash. Polite and respectful people may instead ask a question if they have never heard of such a concept, or have doubt about it's validity. Since you've done neither, I really don't wish to waste my time with someone being so hostile. I've provided links to some of these concepts, if you have questions about them, then please politely ask and I will be happy to answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dearest Internet Aquaintence,

I am deeply interested in what you are saying. Can you please demonstrate to me the connection between our 9+ planets and music?

Thank you so very much,

Josh

P.S. I nearly forgot! Can you also please go into more scholarly detail about this fascinating idea that "The Cosmos is Music"?

[prana]

[ QUOTE ]
The underlying thoery of astrology, the change in gravity due to the alignment of the planets and the stars, is nonsensical since that gravity has less force than the computer you are sitting in front of.

[/ QUOTE ]


hmmm.....what about the moon's pull on the ocean??? I don't think your computer is that powerful.

[ QUOTE ]
The Moon does, however, dominate tides on Earth. The Sun also causes tides on Earth, but they are smaller than those caused by the Moon. As a result, the effect of the Sun on tides is primarily seen as a modification of the extremity of the tides caused by the Moon. When the Sun, Moon and Earth are aligned (New Moon or Full Moon) the tidal forces of the Sun and Moon act together, and we get the highest high tides and the lowest low tides. These are called Spring tides (I don't know why). When there is a right angle between the Sun, Earth, and Moon (First and Third Quarter Moon, or what we'd also call a "half" Moon), the tidal force of the Sun partially cancels that of the Moon, and the tides are at their least extreme. Those are called Neap Tides.

[/ QUOTE ]

from: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec99/945782609.As.r.html

the pull of the other planets in our system is many times less than the pull of the moon but to say they have less effect than a computer is illogical to say the least when the moon changes the position of aprox. 1,338,000,000 cubic kilometres of water every day.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I was referring to political change in the context of David and my discussion about the poorer parts of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok - But for mentioning 'POLITICAL' in this forum you must spend two days in the penalty box with The Pope. Either that, or have Roger Clemens bean you on the knee with a fastball - Your choice.

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

-Zeno

[Jim T]

"the pull of the other planets in our system is many times less than the pull of the moon but to say they have less effect than a computer is illogical to say the least when the moon changes the position of aprox. 1,338,000,000 cubic kilometres of water every day. "

But since he said absolutely nothing about the Moon, and only talked about other planets and stars, what was the point of your post?

[prana]

[ QUOTE ]
"the pull of the other planets in our system is many times less than the pull of the moon but to say they have less effect than a computer is illogical to say the least when the moon changes the position of aprox. 1,338,000,000 cubic kilometres of water every day. "

But since he said absolutely nothing about the Moon, and only talked about other planets and stars, what was the point of your post?

[/ QUOTE ]

He was talking about the "underlying theory of astrology" and just referred to other planets and stars. Well if we are going to talk about the "underlying theory of astrology" the moon is very influential in the eyes of astrologers perhaps only under the importance of one's sun sign controlled by the biggest gravity generator, our sun. I really don't know how you don't see the correlation here except to nit pick. If the moon, which by the way IS included in the "underlying theory of astrology" has a strong enough pull to move the oceans daily, it seems very naive or at the very least narrowminded to say that these other planets gravitational pulls can't effect the earth and it's inhabitants at all let alone to say that they don't equal the amount of gravity as our computer in front of us without some proven scientific data refuting.

[PairTheBoard]

DS --
"The underlying thoery of astrology, the change in gravity due to the alignment of the planets and the stars, is nonsensical since that gravity has less force than the computer you are sitting in front of."

Maybe they are talking about Psychic Gravity. In which case my computer has far more effect than that of the planets.

DS --
"When astologers are asked to guess what sign a person is based on meeting them and assessing their personalities, they are right one in twelve."

Yes, but they are almost right 11 out of 12 times and they are really right on the 12th time which is a magical number anyway.

PairTheBoard

[prana]

from: Sci/Tech: Are Scientists prejudiced against astrology? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/119299.stm)

[ QUOTE ]
David Whitehouse should stick to talking about things that he knows something about. His comments on astrology reflect a complete ignorance about the subject, coupled with the irrational nihilism.

We have come to expect this from scientists who are frightened by ways of looking at the world which are not consistent with existing scientific dogma

Mr. Whitehouse's knowledge of astrology seems to be limited to newspaper columns, since he believes that a major part of astrology is predicting the future, and that astrologers might claim to be able to predict the World Cup.

He claims to have talked to practicing astrologers: however, any professional astrologer would have told him that newspaper columns have little or no connection with proper astrology.

He claims that "There is not the slightest bit of serious scientific evidence that it works." This simply isn't true, and shows that he has not taken the trouble to look at the literature.

[/ QUOTE ]

replace "whitehouse" with "sklansky"

[ QUOTE ]
The claims that astrology makes are just as testable as the claims made by chemists or physicists.

For example, astrology claims that people born with Mars in Aries are likely to be more aggressive than average. This is testable.

Unfortunately, because of the prejudice of the scientific community, funds for studying astrology are limited. Consequently, much astrological theory is unproven.

Despite this, there is very strong evidence that a core of astrology is, indeed, valid. Hans Eysenck, professor of Psychology at the University of London, has written an excellent review of recent literature.

Another book I would recommend him to read is "Recent Advances in Natal Astrology" by G. Dean, an analytical chemist from Perth.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Professor Eysenck's conclusion is as follows: Overall, then, in response to the question "Does astrology work?", we would agree with the summing up of Dean and others (1977), that 'the picture emerging suggests that astrology works, but seldom in the way or to the extent that it is said to work.'

One could hardly expect otherwise from a tradition which is thousands of years old, but which has only in the last century been subject to scientific analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Scientists scoff

Yet scientists scoff at astrology because they cannot understand how it could work. This is an irrational approach, not a scientific one.

Moreover, it is getting the cart before the horse. If at least 20% of what astrology claims is proven (and at least this is certain), then we have something to investigate.

With a scientific background and a strong interest in astrology, am very interested to find out what the mechanism actually is.

I think that any scientist should be equally curious: if astrology cannot be explained by existing laws, then maybe it can tell us something new about the universe. Mr Whitehouse's comment that the gravitational fields of the planets at the time of birth are too weak to affect the child is trite. We know this, thank you very much.

[/ QUOTE ]
guess this answers the astrologists view about pull of planets' gravity at one's birth. I am no means an astrologer but think it is definitely something that has not seen enough investigation and controlled experiments.

[ QUOTE ]
It is your job as a scientist what the mechanism actually is. Indeed, any scientist worthy of the name should be open to new ways of looking at the universe, rather than to defending existing dogmas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't this be more the mind of someone thinking he may have been able to win a nobel prize?

[PairTheBoard]

I think Whitehouse clearly shows what a naive he is with this comment - from the link.

David Whitehouse --
"Thor is not the god of thunder, the earth isn't the centre of the universe and there are not fairies at the bottom of my garden. "

As anyone familiar with Viking lore can tell you, Thor certainly is the god of thunder. The earth is as much the center of the universe as anyplace else, and the fairies at the bottom of David's garden are obviously avoiding him.

PairTheBoard

[college kid]

It's late at night, I haven't read any of the replies, and I know that since I am very poor at arguing, I will have many faults in what I am about to say. But I don't care. I think Mr. Sklansky is a bad parent for his comments in the last paragraph of his post.

I have seen a lot of idiots and a lot of drug addicts, and I cannot believe you would pick teh drug addict for your son rather than an idiot. Let's say the astrology devotee is a wonderful kind person who, while not being very intelligent, leads a good life, and barring occassional misinformation based on astrology, enriches the lives of those around him with his kindness and personality. He may be a fool, but he is a hard working productive member of society--let's also have him volunteer at the Institute for Helping Cute Helpless Animals and Making the World a Better Overall Place.

On the other hand, we have a druggie, who does nothing productive, and while being intelligent, detracts entirely from society, taking welfare, taking advantage of everybody he meets, and stealing money from Institute for Helping Cute Helpless Animals and Making the World a Better Overall Place. And he also killed the uh--sweet old mother-- of some guy who sold him bad drugs.

Now obviously these are stupid examples which point to extreme goods and bads, but that's my point. You cannot judge a person's worth and value solely on their intelligence or beliefs. While I agree that having a flawed belief, such as astrology, is inherently bad because it is flawed and will lead to incorrect and/or bad actions based on flawed information, I think you really have to take the whole life of the person into account before you say something like "if I had to choose between my son being an astrology believer all his life or a heroin addict all his life, I would choose the latter."

Would you, given the stupidly extreme scenario, still choice the heroin addict? And if yes, I challenge you to justify that. Would the world be better off with the bad druggie, or the idiot saint? What makes a person's worth? Is it pure ego, that you, David Sklansky could not stand to be the parent of an astrology believer? Or do you really think that such a flawed view is so dangereous that it outweights all else?

And again, while I greatly respect you and enjoy these posts and also believe you have probably have raised a wonderful and intelligent family, think you are a bad parent for saying what you did!!! (That is of course, assuming you stick with it even with my scenario.)

[college kid]

I found a small white rock once many years ago and put under my pillow to see if the tooth fairy would be fooled. I don't think he was. He left a note in my dad's handwriting saying that we wasn't. Oh well, I'd still do it again. I mean, it's worth a shot, right?

Just thought I'd throw that in there and add absolutely nothing to this sub-thread.

Cheers and goodnight.

[PokerAmateur4]

Recently I was curious about what the deal was with Astrology, this may help all parties concerned with the matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology

[Shandrax]

Human beings have a tendency to search for patterns in everything. Some get so excited whenever they find a pattern, that they forget about the laws of physics. I am not sure if one should call them idiots, but it my opinion that describes it best.

[Cooker]

Neptune discovered: 1846
Uranus discovered: 1781

How do the notes fit with 6 planets? Thats how many the Greeks knew about.

[Warren Whitmore]

Good point.

You would rather have a son who makes himself temprorarily illogical from time to time than one who is permanantly that way. I agree

[scarr]

People who believe in astrology gather at conventions where they have little booths where people will take a picture of your "aura" with the Kirlian Aura Camera (http://www.kirlian.org/kirlian_camera.htm).

Maybe not subhuman, but definately gullible a bunch of mystics.

[prana]

[ QUOTE ]
Human beings have a tendency to search for patterns in everything. Some get so excited whenever they find a pattern, that they forget about the laws of physics. I am not sure if one should call them idiots, but it my opinion that describes it best.

[/ QUOTE ]

hilarious.....

math·e·mat·ics (mth-mtks)
n. (used with a sing. verb)

The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols.

Patterns here no???? Do we know everything about physics yet, especially biophysics???? So this means...... Us idiots u genius!!!

/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

I'll say the same as a past post where I ask what kind of close minded person will ever discover anything new. He does nothing but regurgitate what has been done. Sure he may be smart enough to understand the most complex things TAUGHT to him, but a pioneer (Nobel prize winner I might say) opens his mind enough to give possibility to the unbelievable and push the envelope.

Just more blind leading(or misleading) the blind imho.

[prana]

[ QUOTE ]
People who believe in astrology gather at conventions where they have little booths where people will take a picture of your "aura" with the Kirlian Aura Camera (http://www.kirlian.org/kirlian_camera.htm).




From:
Maybe not subhuman, but definately gullible a bunch of mystics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again people not knowing what they are even talking about. You ever do any research into this or just laugh it off.
There have many teams of scientists FUNDED by governments to study this subject.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
Simple logic shows that online poker is clearly not rigged

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you took a different logic class than I did...what the [censored] do you mean? Is "online poker is not rigged" up there with law of excluded middle?

[prana]

for what it is worth to those bringing up the discovered planet thing. Although I am not a practicing astrologist, I do find credence in almost ALL things studied and believed by people. Astrologists predicted the finding of a tenth planet long before it was found. Search Pan Horus. I didn't know intelligence bred ignorance, or is it just arrogance?

[scarr]

[ QUOTE ]
Again people not knowing what they are even talking about. You ever do any research into this or just laugh it off.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must admit you are correct, I laughed it off at first. So I looked at it a little further.

http://www.electrophotography.com/images/k40both1.jpg
<font color="red">
Left Image: very psychic (note half moons) but low distorted energy

Right Image: very psychic (note half moons) but also very high positive energy

Which psychic would you like to go to?
</font>

Obviously a leap was taken here. The seller of this device is claiming that the person is the right picture is a better psychic than the one on the left. Maybe it is true, but if we are funding scientests to figure out what it means, then we still are not convinced this camera is actually taking a picture of anything indicative of psychic powers.

Just like the people who think the poker sites have stacked the deck for the big stacks. People have a tendency to see some strange pattern and immediately make their own conclusions without enough information. "Astrology", "Psychic Powers", images of the Virgin Mary, and "RiverStars" all fall into this category.

This camera is obviously taking a picture of some physical phenomena, but what does this have to do with being psychic? How is this indicative of someone's ability to pick up subtle patterns everyone else misses? Some people are more perceptive than others, and most of these people can't explain why they picked something up, they just "had a feeling". I think the planets (in the sense of astrology) is just something to hang these unexplained perceptions on. The aura camera is the same thing, something random which the rest of us can witness, but can be the source of patterns which psychics can point to make us believe them.

[JoshuaD]

YOU DIDN'T NOTE THE HALF MOONS SCARR.