quote:

Originally posted by Lira Quote me in context, Paul

never!

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Metaphysics wise, you're right: Both are hard to swallow, and I said that. However, astrology can be naturalised if you drop the astro- and turn it into some sort of psychology (so perhaps astronomy and psychology may have rendered astrology obsolete for ever). As Malcolm Gladwell pointed out in his book "Outliers", most hockey players in North America are born in January (Capricorn/Aquarius), February (Aquarius/Pisces), and the first weeks of March (Pisces) because of how the calendar works. So one might say that Capricorn/Aquarius/Pisces are more inclined to become hockey players in the relevant countries, though one should also try to explain why this isn't in the realms of traditional psychology.

a statistical anomaly isn't anything noteworthy. we're talking specifically about your star sign giving you certain personality traits; count how many people born in jan/feb who play ice hockey in australia. fuck all.

so already, with a single change in environment, we see absolutely no statistical anomaly. we'd probably find a completely different one, because our school/sport years are at different times to the north america.

there is no relationship. there is a correlation based on the social norms of the culture, not on the impact of heavenly bodies which have some secret mechanism to affect people, but only those born at a certain moment in space and time.

it is bullshit on a homeopathic proportions.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira [*]Astrology: The explanations are egregious, but it sort of gave rise to astrology and it may be considered some sort of personality proto-psychology. Like I said, a good theory doesn't need to be true in the realist sense, so the only challenge is: What sort of facts can be explained by astrology that can't be explained by traditional science already? A conceptual reformulations would be welcome, but not exactly crucial;

is this secret code for 'its a great way to distinguish ones mental competence by studying their beliefs in astrology'? if so, then we agree. is it a good indicator of being a little nutty? is the psychology of the belief system worthy of being diagnosed as some kind of mental disease? these are all valid questions, thanks for asking them.

as for the bolded, i see no reason whatsoever to promote a new-age god of the gaps in our study of the universe. 'i dont know' is a perfectly acceptable answer to life's questions. pseudo-science is a cancer and a cesspool from which other, equally-demented ideas spring forth in all their faggot glory. before you know it you're buying crystals for stu's mum for cheap blowjobs.

it is unacceptable to promote such notions of 'well, science hasn't got there yet so let's all eat shit sandwiches, nom nom nom'.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira [*]Acupuncture: I'm not exactly a fan of the concept of "qi" but, if I recall correctly (and I don't intend to say I'm sure about the reliability of the following statement), acupuncture seems to be effective (even in animals that can't be affected by the placebo effect, like rats), so though I don't believe these "inner forces" exist, if a systematisation that happens to make use of them works, that's pretty much what matters, and further research should be done in order to understand what's going on here.[/list]

i dont know much about acupuncture. if it started out as woo and by sheer dumb luck turned out to have some kind of utility, then score one for the bad guys. the score is now 1 bajillion to 2 (if we count chiropractors). not sure im willing to take any bets on astrology bringing the count to 3 and i think defending the possibility of a third goal in this context is unreasonable.

I think C.Viper is an Aries. She has red hair, and she gets aggressive on the knockdown. Let's not forget she has fire n stuff.

I'm a Taurus, the best sign of all. Suckers.

___________________
Like Progressive and Deep House? Grab my latest mix below
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...s=#.UAv1rbRo3h4

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN nutter or loser? maybe both?

Yes. I am also a drug addict on the weekends.

___________________
Still feelin' the love for the old-school? Join here:

Old-School Trance Appreciation Club

and may the PLUR be with you.

Last edited by stealthman on Jan-04-2011 at 13:43

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN a statistical anomaly isn't anything noteworthy. we're talking specifically about your star sign giving you certain personality traits; count how many people born in jan/feb who play ice hockey in australia. fuck all. so already, with a single change in environment, we see absolutely no statistical anomaly. we'd probably find a completely different one, because our school/sport years are at different times to the north america. there is no relationship. there is a correlation based on the social norms of the culture, not on the impact of heavenly bodies which have some secret mechanism to affect people, but only those born at a certain moment in space and time. it is bullshit on a homeopathic proportions.

If you read what I said, this has been pretty much my position the whole time. I'm explicitly denying that celestial bodies may have any impact on us, other than the occasional awe during starry nights. I didn't imply for a single minute that there is such a relationship.

I like to keep ideas around so we can criticise them and perhaps gain something out of it: perhaps we can find a correlation between date of birth due to cultural pressures and behaviour. And this is obviously going to be an enterprise much more modest than anything astrology ever promised - like you said, the social pressures in Australia are much different than those found in North America.

Except for my "live and let live" attitude and my toleration towards degenerating belief systems (because their presence may prove useful in the future), we don't really seem to disagree about much else.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN is this secret code for 'its a great way to distinguish ones mental competence by studying their beliefs in astrology'? if so, then we agree. is it a good indicator of being a little nutty? is the psychology of the belief system worthy of being diagnosed as some kind of mental disease? these are all valid questions, thanks for asking them.

I'd be inclined to say yes (in other words), yes, and I wouldn't go that far because we'd have to label too many people as "mentally ill" by these standards

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN as for the bolded, i see no reason whatsoever to promote a new-age god of the gaps in our study of the universe. 'i dont know' is a perfectly acceptable answer to life's questions. pseudo-science is a cancer and a cesspool from which other, equally-demented ideas spring forth in all their faggot glory. before you know it you're buying crystals for stu's mum for cheap blowjobs.

I'm not saying we should promote astrology. I'm saying we should let astrologists be, with some reservations, and see if they can come up with something useful someday. It's unlikely they ever will but, well, whatever floats their zodiacal boat.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN it is unacceptable to promote such notions of 'well, science hasn't got there yet so let's all eat shit sandwiches, nom nom nom'.

Maybe this is where we diverge: We need as many ideas as possible in our conceptual toolbox, including the bad ones. Why? Because we need to know what doesn't work so we can understand what's wrong about them (I'm talking more than just stars here, but also why it can't be anything else) and, on the extremely rare occasion, fix it and/or keep it on display to remind ourselves why that isn't a goal worth pursuing.

In short, we need ideas to knock and ideas to rock.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i dont know much about acupuncture. if it started out as woo and by sheer dumb luck turned out to have some kind of utility, then score one for the bad guys. the score is now 1 bajillion to 2 (if we count chiropractors). not sure im willing to take any bets on astrology bringing the count to 3 and i think defending the possibility of a third goal in this context is unreasonable.

I'd say it's probably the result of trial and error for thousands of years, much like everything else.

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by djhaziel Horoscopes have given astrology a bad reputation.

quote:

Originally posted by djhaziel Wounds bleed more when there is a full moon.

Fuck's sake, Moveson, we've had this talk already!

___________________

My Set Archive - MY BLOG

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Fuck's sake, Moveson, we've had this talk already!

You sound like a Gemini ... fuck you I don't debate with geminis

___________________
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...4&forumid=73&s=

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by Lira If you read what I said, this has been pretty much my position the whole time. I'm explicitly denying that celestial bodies may have any impact on us, other than the occasional awe during starry nights. I didn't imply for a single minute that there is such a relationship. I like to keep ideas around so we can criticise them and perhaps gain something out of it: perhaps we can find a correlation between date of birth due to cultural pressures and behaviour. And this is obviously going to be an enterprise much more modest than anything astrology ever promised - like you said, the social pressures in Australia are much different than those found in North America. Except for my "live and let live" attitude and my toleration towards degenerating belief systems (because their presence may prove useful in the future), we don't really seem to disagree about much else. I'd be inclined to say yes (in other words), yes, and I wouldn't go that far because we'd have to label too many people as "mentally ill" by these standards I'm not saying we should promote astrology. I'm saying we should let astrologists be, with some reservations, and see if they can come up with something useful someday. It's unlikely they ever will but, well, whatever floats their zodiacal boat. Maybe this is where we diverge: We need as many ideas as possible in our conceptual toolbox, including the bad ones. Why? Because we need to know what doesn't work so we can understand what's wrong about them (I'm talking more than just stars here, but also why it can't be anything else) and, on the extremely rare occasion, fix it and/or keep it on display to remind ourselves why that isn't a goal worth pursuing. In short, we need ideas to knock and ideas to rock. I'd say it's probably the result of trial and error for thousands of years, much like everything else.

Hippy.

___________________

awesome