i wonder if it's really Ella's birthday....

[Nathan deGargoyle]

I can accept that the time of year you are born in has some effect on your future, and maybe that the time of day has, and certainly that your geographical location has but why tie this in to patterns of stars and the "personalities" of the planets?

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

That isn't what I said.

I'm not impying that it doesn't work for everyone but that like musical ability, some get to the standard of playing 'chopsticks' over and over and others use the full breadth of the keyboard.

There are other methods. If someone suggested that she had two daughters or sons who were total opposites in temperament and could I tell the 2 apart from just a time and date of birth I'd say 'no problem'. But thats the only trust I have. I can't speak for different tests because you've only chosen the ones opposing (which isn't surprising).

As I say, Sandy. It is all a question of perception. A political scandal is written about totally differently in the Guardian to the Telegraph. For example, Ruth Kelly is doing the best for her daughter in the Labour press whilst in the Tory press she is a cynical hypocrite of the first order. Each looks at the same event through the eyeglasses of their preconceptions.

All I can say, is that whenever put to the test I've managed it with some success!

The trouble with your tests is that you are already predisposed to the idea that it works, so it is bound to work in your mind. Just as a Labour supporter faced with all the incompetence that party has shown, will still believe that Labour's policies are working.

See what I mean?

If people are sceptical of a theory it is up to the proposer to demonstrate the logic of how it works.

The same is the case of man causing Global Warming. There is nothing wrong with people's scepticism and it is up to the proponents of the theory to explain the logic behind it, which they have done.

Where is the logic that backs up astrology?

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

sandywinder said:

Sure thing, Daz. I'm game.

<<< Gauquelin set himself the task of analyzing astrology statistically by studying various correlations using very large samples of birth data. An example from one of his earlier books in 1967 is what he called the "test of opposed destinies" which entailed astrologers being asked to separate the birth charts of twenty well-known criminals from twenty non-criminals. They did no better than chance. (The Cosmic Clocks, 1967) >>>

But it would not remotely surprising that a believer would be able to find plenty of evidence to back up his claims. The same was the case with homeopathy. One doctor (who had made a comfortable living out of it) provided evidence that homeopathy worked in trials but when this was monitored by a quack debunker the results could not be repeated.

While the logic of homeopathy is shaky at best it does at least have some behind it.

Well you've managed to find the one test in which he failed whilst ignoring the other 90 per cent so it should be pointed out that these links are highly selective.

The problem remains that in what possible respect can I prove or disprove the proposition?

You personally can't prove it or disprove it but attempts have been to do that very thing. The links I provided initially with a fairly large sample proved that it was nonsense.

It has no more logic or justification than me being able to read a person's character buy studying their tea leaves, or looking in a crystal ball or reading tarot cards.

[Daz Madrigal]

sandywinder said:

madrigalman said:

Well you've managed to find the one test in which he failed whilst ignoring the other 90 per cent so it should be pointed out that these links are highly selective.

The problem remains that in what possible respect can I prove or disprove the proposition?

You personally can't prove it or disprove it but attempts have been to do that very thing. The links I provided initially with a fairly large sample proved that it was nonsense.

It has no more logic or justification than me being able to read a person's character buy studying their tea leaves, or looking in a crystal ball or reading tarot cards.

Calm down, let CG give you a massage and some Reiki healing ..and then I'll come along and stick some acupuncture pins into the relevant parts...or in your case...part.

Troosers down, Sandy and then turn round and bend over! ;D

[Daz Madrigal]

pinkgoyle said:

I can accept that the time of year you are born in has some effect on your future, and maybe that the time of day has, and certainly that your geographical location has but why tie this in to patterns of stars and the "personalities" of the planets?

Exactly. I dont know.

I dont think Science knows a lot of things. In fact it may be that its barely scratching the surface. Do you know if you will be perfectly well after drinking the milk of a cloned cow? Are you perfectly happy to eat GM foods?

Or lets look at something that maybe verges on science and metaphysic. Lots of very ordinary normal people say that they take on some of an organ donors personality. It doesnt make logical sense but who knows. No-one has anything to gain from it?

The sheer longevity of the subject at the very least deserves a nod of respect. Its survived since the dawn of civilisation and shows no decrease in popularity from the early Sumerian times to now.

Now you could reply well so have sheeps entrials but I'm afriad there are no scientific books or books written by Historians, Poets, Professors on the subject of Entrails. It may still exist but only in primitive societies.

You can't prove it. If insisted on I've swayed complete sceptics over a period of time but that was in the days when I took more time to study it. Nowadays I barely glance at it more than a dozen occasions a year possibly.

[Daz Madrigal]

sandywinder said:

madrigalman said:

That isn't what I said.

I'm not impying that it doesn't work for everyone but that like musical ability, some get to the standard of playing 'chopsticks' over and over and others use the full breadth of the keyboard.

There are other methods. If someone suggested that she had two daughters or sons who were total opposites in temperament and could I tell the 2 apart from just a time and date of birth I'd say 'no problem'. But thats the only trust I have. I can't speak for different tests because you've only chosen the ones opposing (which isn't surprising).

As I say, Sandy. It is all a question of perception. A political scandal is written about totally differently in the Guardian to the Telegraph. For example, Ruth Kelly is doing the best for her daughter in the Labour press whilst in the Tory press she is a cynical hypocrite of the first order. Each looks at the same event through the eyeglasses of their preconceptions.

All I can say, is that whenever put to the test I've managed it with some success!

The trouble with your tests is that you are already predisposed to the idea that it works, so it is bound to work in your mind. Just as a Labour supporter faced with all the incompetence that party has shown, will still believe that Labour's policies are working.

See what I mean?

If people are sceptical of a theory it is up to the proposer to demonstrate the logic of how it works.

The same is the case of man causing Global Warming. There is nothing wrong with people's scepticism and it is up to the proponents of the theory to explain the logic behind it, which they have done.

Where is the logic that backs up astrology?

Your giving logic amazing powers into every area of human life. You don't fancy someone through the process of logic though despite claims by scientists that use reductionist logic to measure chemical reactions.

If you were the judge in a Beauty Contest, do you again use purely logic, Sandy?

Moreover, could a scientist use logic to decide who you would give your vote to and for what logical reasons?

Could he explain why you gave your vote to the woman who came last whereas everyone else voted for the winner of the pageant?

In what way does logic explain all actions and all things?

[Daz Madrigal]

<< If people are sceptical of a theory it is up to the proposer to demonstrate the logic of how it works. >>

Why didn't you say that at the beginning, Sandy?

I have absolutely no idea how it works...its sheer rampant human megalomania to expect human kind to know how 'everything works'...they cant even cure a common cold, Sandy..how much going on in the world do you actually think we can explain?

You can go back 100 yrs, 200 yrs or far further back..but only since the so-called Enlightenment (a total misnomer!) have humans puffed out their chests and boasted that they know everything!!!

...the truth is they know very little.

[Daz Madrigal]

Actually I've promised Dara to peruse her chart because she thinks this year - 2007 - is going to be a bad one. So I'll err..try and allay her nerves.

Then again..if it is bad...should I keep my counsel and bite my tongue?

Ooooh the responsibility of being a Seer.

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

<< If people are sceptical of a theory it is up to the proposer to demonstrate the logic of how it works. >>

Why didn't you say that at the beginning, Sandy?

I have absolutely no idea how it works...its sheer rampant human megalomania to expect human kind to know how 'everything works'...they cant even cure a common cold, Sandy..how much going on in the world do you actually think we can explain?

You can go back 100 yrs, 200 yrs or far further back..but only since the so-called Enlightenment (a total misnomer!) have humans puffed out their chests and boasted that they know everything!!!

...the truth is they know very little.

But we do know a hell of a lot more than we did over 3000 years when astrology and religion started.

You can even manage to type English on a keyboard so we must have come along way indeed ;D

Nobody is saying we must know everything in order to come to a judgement about any theory. But we must have logic.

Sure they can't cure the common cold but now at least they know why they can't do so. So they don't bother to kill chickens and spill its blood over the sufferer at full moon or any of that nonsense.

Which takes us back to the mumbo jumbo of astrology.

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

Actually I've promised Dara to peruse her chart because she thinks this year - 2007 - is going to be a bad one. So I'll err..try and allay her nerves.

Then again..if it is bad...should I keep my counsel and bite my tongue?

Ooooh the responsibility of being a Seer.

I predict 2057 will be a bad year as well. For the population of the whole bloody planet.

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

sandywinder said:

The trouble with your tests is that you are already predisposed to the idea that it works, so it is bound to work in your mind. Just as a Labour supporter faced with all the incompetence that party has shown, will still believe that Labour's policies are working.

See what I mean?

If people are sceptical of a theory it is up to the proposer to demonstrate the logic of how it works.

The same is the case of man causing Global Warming. There is nothing wrong with people's scepticism and it is up to the proponents of the theory to explain the logic behind it, which they have done.

Where is the logic that backs up astrology?

Your giving logic amazing powers into every area of human life. You don't fancy someone through the process of logic though despite claims by scientists that use reductionist logic to measure chemical reactions.

If you were the judge in a Beauty Contest, do you again use purely logic, Sandy?

Moreover, could a scientist use logic to decide who you would give your vote to and for what logical reasons?

Could he explain why you gave your vote to the woman who came last whereas everyone else voted for the winner of the pageant?

In what way does logic explain all actions and all things?

Beauty contests are not about forecasting the future but choosing a woman. And you will give your vote to the one who promises to sleep with you. That's logical to me.

As for politics decisions as to which party to vote for are based on logic. Often it is misplaced logic but if you have preference for some policies then you will more likely vote for a party that supports those policies.

If you hated the fact that British powers were being taken away by European politicians and dogsbodies it would not be logical to vote for the Tory party or Labour or the Lib-Dems for instance.

[Daz Madrigal]

Ah but the scientist can't tell you why you should pick one over the other.

[Daz Madrigal]

sandywinder said:

madrigalman said:

Actually I've promised Dara to peruse her chart because she thinks this year - 2007 - is going to be a bad one. So I'll err..try and allay her nerves.

Then again..if it is bad...should I keep my counsel and bite my tongue?

Ooooh the responsibility of being a Seer.

I predict 2057 will be a bad year as well. For the population of the whole bloody planet.

2057?

Yeah its gonna be bad for all of us apart from possibly Dara.

[Daz Madrigal]

sandywinder said:

madrigalman said:

Your giving logic amazing powers into every area of human life. You don't fancy someone through the process of logic though despite claims by scientists that use reductionist logic to measure chemical reactions.

If you were the judge in a Beauty Contest, do you again use purely logic, Sandy?

Moreover, could a scientist use logic to decide who you would give your vote to and for what logical reasons?

Could he explain why you gave your vote to the woman who came last whereas everyone else voted for the winner of the pageant?

In what way does logic explain all actions and all things?

Beauty contests are not about forecasting the future but choosing a woman. And you will give your vote to the one who promises to sleep with you. That's logical to me.

As for politics decisions as to which party to vote for are based on logic. Often it is misplaced logic but if you have preference for some policies then you will more likely vote for a party that supports those policies.

If you hated the fact that British powers were being taken away by European politicians and dogsbodies it would not be logical to vote for the Tory party or Labour or the Lib-Dems for instance.

Nonsense.

People vote for a whole host of reasons. You keep mentioning logic as if its some shining beacon.

People vote due to heredity very often..they have same views as their peers at University maybe...peer pressure...or maybe vote out of their hearts. Help the Poor - Help stop the War.

Or dont you recognise the Heart either - is that another fallacy, Sandy?

[Daz Madrigal]

I need a good laugh so I'm going to look at the Crumblies, Sandy..see how many more people have stormed off in a huff. It was two last week..can we go one better?