Is Astrology for Realz?

You will be 'shunned' by the community if you support ideas for which there is no evidence, because that is not scientific.

You will not be shunned for suggesting something and testing it, but when that test proves negative, it's time to belt up and go back to the drawing board.

There is no evidence that astrology is for realz, therefore it ain't. There is also no evidence that there are separate patterns in different places in reality which somehow interact with each other over time. Also, there is no logical reason to believe in any of these things as far as I can see, asides from wishful thinking.

Why do you lock yourself inside this prison of what you claim to know.

You claim to know there is no evidence for astrology, but there is. Like I said, blind natal chart readings were compared to psychological case studies of people and they found similarities.

And besides that, you claim that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence, but that defies the definition of skepticism. Skepticism is an endless search for an impossible truth. To a true skeptic, astrology will never be true, but it'll hold value as long as it continues to show evidence of value.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. You believe, subjectively, that astrology is false. Objectively, there cannot be true and false because they stem from subjective experiences. In reality, everything simply exists, without definitions separating them. I'm afraid this is simply the way I view the world. I keep information, but all it ends up as is probability to dictate my actions. I don't think there's any real truth out there, everything is just a densified conscious experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Why do you lock yourself inside this prison of what you claim to know.

---

A prison? HA! It's called rational thought, you should try it some time. It is rather enlightening...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

You claim to know there is no evidence for astrology, but there is. Like I said, blind natal chart readings were compared to psychological case studies of people and they found similarities[citation needed].

---

Fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

And besides that, you claim that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence, but that defies the definition of skepticism. Skepticism is an endless search for an impossible truth. To a true skeptic, astrology will never be true, but it'll hold value as long as it continues to show evidence of value.

---

Redefining words for fluff! You are a fool and a half. You are not familiar with the concept of burden of proof which any claim has to meet. If it can't provide the necessary evidence to meet that burden, then it is disregarded, because absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Also, No True Scotsman fallacy highlighted in bold in quote. Fail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. You believe, subjectively, that astrology is false. Objectively, there cannot be true and false because they stem from subjective experiences. In reality, everything simply exists, without definitions separating them. I'm afraid this is simply the way I view the world. I keep information, but all it ends up as is probability to dictate my actions. I don't think there's any real truth out there, everything is just a densified conscious experience.

---

Objectivity lies within the realm of facts and evidence. If something cannot be substantiated with enough evidence it is disregarded. I have not seen anything to show Astrology is nothing more than a superstition, therefore I do not view it as anything more than a superstition. You've only presented one potential experiment to prove/falsify Astrology, but Astrology itself would have to meet a large burden of proof so one experiment is not sufficient enough evidence.

I’m a big fan of science, but it’s foolish to think that science has achieved some kind of final state in understanding the totality of existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Enterer

I’m a big fan of science, but it’s foolish to think that science has achieved some kind of final state in understanding the totality of existence.

---

Well, that is kinda why research still continues, because we are still learning. The point is on whether to accept superstitions or what not as Science, even though they can't be substantiated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Churches have magazines, organizations and communities as well. I swear the only difference between an atheist and a religious zealout is they interchanged the word "blasphemy" with "illogical

---

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...50px-Troll.jpg
Don't mind me, I'm on my way to page 4.

Lol bluefinger, that video is hilarious.
"9/11 was bad but this is ongoing as pervasive... it's not like just one day a couple planes.. this is like... there's no end in sight."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Well, that is kinda why research still continues, because we are still learning. The point is on whether to accept superstitions or what not as Science, even though they can't be substantiated.

---

Science has trouble with anything subjective. We can gather data but that's about it.

Psychology is a science.

Quote:

---

Science has trouble with anything subjective

---

How is astrology subjective? It makes predictions that can be scientifically tested. If it predicts XYZ about person A, it is not subjective, it's either true or false. If it correctly predicts that person A will be [whatever], this fact does not change from B's perspective.

Subjectivity is usually misused as a last-ditch defence mechanism used when people are losing an argument on religious/supernatural grounds. When they realise that science is attacking a belief, they claim immunity due to it being subjective instead!

However, this is not the case when it comes to astrology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korittke

Psychology is a science.

---

Then again so is theology. ;) Seriously though, modern psychology has moved away from the subjective aspects of the psyche. Even in Jungs time he was accused of being a mystic rather that a scientist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

How is astrology subjective? It makes predictions that can be scientifically tested. If it predicts XYZ about person A, it is not subjective, it's either true or false. If it correctly predicts that person A will be [whatever], this fact does not change from B's perspective.

---

sub·jec·tive –adjective
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4. Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
6. pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Subjectivity is usually misused as a last-ditch defence mechanism used when people are losing an argument on religious/supernatural grounds. When they realise that science is attacking a belief, they claim immunity due to it being subjective instead!

However, this is not the case when it comes to astrology.

---

It's not a dodge, it's true. Science is ill equipped to deal with subjective experience. That may change someday, but for now it is a real limitation and a blindspot. Any real scientist will tell you the same thing.

Quote:

---

It's not a dodge, it's true. Science is ill equipped to deal with subjective experience. That may change someday, but for now it is a real limitation and a blindspot. Any real scientist will tell you the same thing.

---

Actually it is a dodge. You're right, science can't handle subjective stuff such as morality, but astrology is not subjective.

It's simple why: the predictions about a given person are not right for some but wrong for others. It's either right or wrong period. Ergo it's a scientific claim and can be tested.

If you claim astrology is immune from scientific scepticism and testing then you really are either deluding yourself, or you're being stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Enterer

Then again so is theology. ;) Seriously though, modern psychology has moved away from the subjective aspects of the psyche. Even in Jungs time he was accused of being a mystic rather that a scientist.

---

Theology is a science? Allow me to illustrate my reaction:

http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/467.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Actually it is a dodge. You're right, science can't handle subjective stuff such as morality, but astrology is not subjective.

It's simple why: the predictions about a given person are not right for some but wrong for others. It's either right or wrong period. Ergo it's a scientific claim and can be tested.

If you claim astrology is immune from scientific scepticism and testing then you really are either deluding yourself, or you're being stupid.

---

Can we do this without being insulting?

You can gather data and make predictions, but that doesn't change the fact that astrology is subjective. And the prediction can and will be right for some and wrong for others, the thought process is the issue here, not the final result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Enterer

Can we do this without being insulting?

You can gather data and make predictions, but that doesn't change the fact that astrology is subjective. And the prediction can and will be right for some and wrong for others, the thought process is the issue here, not the final result.

---

Then it is not science, it is mystical bullshit. If X makes prediction Y for category Z, then it must apply to person A, B and C who are within category Z. If the prediction only works for person A but not person B and C, then just from that result, there's only a 33.3% success rate. If we increase the sample size, the percentage may become even lower than that.

The point is, if the predictions are not occurring for all the people within said category or for at least an overwhelming majority of the sample, then really what it is working with is chance, and not anything concrete.

Therefore... it's bullshit.

Again, astrology makes predictions about what archetypes are going to be at play and how the are going to be interacting with each other. It does not determine how an individual will respond to that archetype. There is a little snag in that chain of causes and events known as free will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Enterer

Again, astrology makes predictions about what archetypes are going to be at play and how the are going to be interacting with each other. It does not determine how an individual will respond to that archetype. There is a little snag in that chain of causes and events known as free will.

---

Technically, Neuroscience has a little snag to your premise. Neuroscience is finding that the brain works in more of a deterministic way as opposed to a model that would imply complete free will. Taking into account a deterministic model of the human mind, if Astrology were to make predictions about occurrences or behaviours of a person, then with the deterministic model, Astrology should be able to apply to any person to whom the prediction applies to (the category, etc).

If Astrology isn't reliable in its predictions, it has little going for it in the first place.

I don’t buy into determinism under any context – neurological, religious, or astrological for that matter.

Again, I don't know how to break this down any simpler for you. Astrology determines what archetypes are going to be at play and how they are going to affect each other. There is NOTHING in that statement about human behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Enterer

I don’t buy into determinism under any context – neurological, religious, or astrological for that matter.

Again, I don't know how to break this down any simpler for you. Astrology determines what archetypes are going to be at play and how they are going to affect each other. There is NOTHING in that statement about human behavior.

---

Then quantify an archetype. What qualifies as an archetype and what is the mechanism by which they interact, not only with other archetypes, but also upon reality.

It is all superstition.... pure and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Then quantify an archetype. What qualifies as an archetype and what is the mechanism by which they interact, not only with other archetypes, but also upon reality.

It is all superstition.... pure and simple.

---

Look, no offence, but it's not my job to educate you on psychology 101, particularly in the context of a debate. Do your homework and then we can continue this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Enterer

Look, no offence, but it's not my job to educate you on psychology 101, particularly in the context of a debate. Do your homework and then we can continue this.

---

This is Astrology we are talking about. It makes specific claims on things, by which the mechanisms behind the claims are not clear. You are making some statements, and I'm putting questions across to assess the validity of those statements. If Astrology is a science, you should have no problem following up on those questions.

Here is a nice article attempting to debunk astrology


Personally I dont believe in astrology. Im going to say right now that my only experience of it is reading horoscopes, and I can safely say that they are a load of rubbish. My problem is that it can only ever make very vague 'predictions', of the type which are almost guaranteed to come true. And if they dont come true, its very easy to simply forget them and only remember the times when a prediction was accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

This is Astrology we are talking about. It makes specific claims on things, by which the mechanisms behind the claims are not clear. You are making some statements, and I'm putting questions across to assess the validity of those statements. If Astrology is a science, you should have no problem following up on those questions.

---

Again, read up on archetypes on your own time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Enterer

Again, read up on archetypes on your own time.

---

Dodging the question once again. I'll assume then you have nothing to really back up your statements then. If you are going to debate for something, it is up to you to provide the evidence for it and explain how it relates to your case. If you can't do even that, then there really is no case in the first place.

Edit: Gratz on reaching the 2^7 post count for some off-topicness. Damn my obsession with binary numbers...

Because I'm not going to take it on myself to educate you on Archetype theory? Whatever. Declare “victory" and leave, then, if it will make you feel better. I don't really care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Enterer

Because I'm not going to take it on myself to educate you on Archetype theory? Whatever. Declare “victory" and leave, then, if it will make you feel better. I don't really care.

---

Victory? I was making a point. I don't care about victory, only on the furthering of what I know to be true and not to be true. But the fact is, nobody has been able to really show why I should take Astrology seriously. If anything, the link Flicker Flare posted is a good article on the subject why I don't take Astrology seriously in the first place. My viewpoint on this is that the burden of proof the proposer of the claim, and not the sceptic. If the proposer cannot meet the burden of proof, then the sceptic can disregard the claim without evidence as well.

Also, the better word to use is hypothesis, not theory, as it has yet to be substantiated with evidence along with having gone through peer-review and third-party reproducibility. Proper use of scientific terms should be adhered to in order to avoid confusion.