|
|
|
|
#1
12-17-2005, 11:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: How do you view astrology?
[ QUOTE ]
Addiction can be treated but it can't be cured, hence the expression 'once an addict always an addict'. [/ QUOTE ] No, it can be cured. It's harder in some than others, though. 
|
|
#2
12-16-2005, 04:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do you view astrology?
[ QUOTE ]
I was wondering whats your vision on astrology( I used the search function and it turns out that sklansky would rather have a son addicted to heroine instead of one that belived in astrology in spite of the evidence, but all the debate was about that statement) Anyway whats your vision about astrology? [/ QUOTE ] I can't help but to remember a scene in Long Dark Teatime of the Soul, which is the second Dirk Gently book by the late Douglas Adams. In the book, Dirk knows the person who writes the horoscopes for the newspaper. For whatever reason, the horoscope writer always makes awful predictions for Dirk. It ends with a comment to the effect that the newspaper didn't understand why it lost 1/12th of its readers. I guess that sums up what I think of astrology.
|
|
#3
12-16-2005, 05:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do you view astrology?
[ QUOTE ]
it turns out that sklansky would rather have a son addicted to heroine instead of one that belived in astrology in spite of the evidence [/ QUOTE ] What evidence? That's the problem of astrology. It makes a series of assertions based upon theories that have no evidence. However, it is coincidentally correct enough times that anecdotal stories allow it to perpetuate. To believe in astrology is to ignore human reason.
|
|
#4
12-16-2005, 05:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do you view astrology?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] it turns out that sklansky would rather have a son addicted to heroine instead of one that belived in astrology in spite of the evidence [/ QUOTE ] What evidence? [/ QUOTE ] The evidence against it. There is plenty. (You're reading the sentence with an implicit "for it" at the end, but that's not what it says.)
|
|
#5
12-16-2005, 05:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do you view astrology?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] it turns out that sklansky would rather have a son addicted to heroine instead of one that belived in astrology in spite of the evidence [/ QUOTE ] What evidence? [/ QUOTE ] The evidence against it. There is plenty. (You're reading the sentence with an implicit "for it" at the end, but that's not what it says.) [/ QUOTE ] Oops. I assumed that the original author included the "in spite of the evidence" as a modifier to argue against Slansky's view. Hmmm... my bias is so strong against astrology that I probably couldn't be persuasive...
|
|
#6
12-17-2005, 12:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do you view astrology?
I have a bit to say on the subject.
Four years ago I was actually very interested in astrology, and wanted to be a professional natal chart reader (I was making side bucks as a tarot reader at the time too). There is a little bit more to astrology than generalizations in the newspaper; the "science" of astrology usually involves a natal chart, which is a personalized graph depicting the placement of all the planets, the moon, and the horizon based on the time and place of birth. This results in a somewhat personalized chart for each person. (For example, I'm a mid-aries with third triant libra rising, moon in aquarius, etc.) There is a little more specificity than one might think. I used to, as an exercise, have people send me natal data of people I didn't know so I could write analyses of them and see how accurate they were. I had some arguably good results. My best was guessing that the woman the chart referred to was a pre-school art teacher who taught with the desks arranged in a circle (I still don't know how I did that). I've seen a few professional delineations that seemed pretty accurate (had a few amazing tarot readings too). I stopped the new age stuff after being disgusted with my ex-girlfriend, who spent more money on crystals than on bills, and pretty much had no control over her life. I agree, there's no scientific reason to believe astrology has any merit (even new agers fail to give a decent...or ANY...explanation in this regard) so I don't put much faith in it, or really care whether it's true or not. And secondly, astrology is not terribly useful, so it doesn't really matter. If you want to prove or disprove astrology objectively, there's an obvious scientific experiment that could be performed: gather together a bunch of random people and get their natal data. Then get the world's best astrologers, and have them interact with the subjects, let them ask questions (obviously stuff regarding their birthdays is off limits), then have the astrologer try and identify the subject's chart from a short list, like multiple choice. Or, alternatively, give the astrologer one chart and have the astrologer interview several subjects, and assign the chart to the correct subject. Repeat ad nauseum with a large sample size. A statistically significant correlation will confirm natal astrology, a random distribution will debunk it. To my knowledge, no such experiment has every been done, although I'm pretty sure it would settle the score pretty well. Unlike, say, religion, astrology is a simple process with mundane results, so you can disprove it empirically. I don't know what the results would be. I lean toward random given my skepticism, but I'd kind of like to see some truth to it. I'm mostly apathetic toward it, but it is "neat" nonetheless, and I think it's fun to think about.
|
|
#7
12-17-2005, 12:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do you view astrology?
The constellations are an accident of how the stars happen to line up from one among an infinity of possible points of view. For example, the principal star of Orion, Sirius, is 8.6 light years from Earth. But the stars of the belt are approximately 1,500 light-years away.
The belt is an accident of perspective. From other parts of space these three stars would form a triangle or their order would be reversed. From just the right angle, all three of them would merge in a single light, an apparent triple star. Were you in the center of the space that the three stars enclosed, each would appear in a far-flung corner of the sky.
|
|
#10
12-17-2005, 03:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do you view astrology?
[ QUOTE ]
From just the right angle, all three of them would merge in a single light, an apparent triple star. [/ QUOTE ] No they wouldn't... the stars aren't collinear. Edit: I can spell, really I can.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
