--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <fintlewoodle...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > And now you're putting words in my mouth, even though > > > > I've made it clear on any number of occasions--including > > > > to you--that I'm highly dubious of astrology in general. > > > > > > So why keep defending it? > > > > As I've already pointed out, you can't productively > > critique something if you don't understand how it's > > said to work. I haven't been "defending" it, I've > > been trying to explain it to you. > > > > But it's clear you don't want to do the mental work > > necessary to get clear on it; you'd rather just toss > > off your own harebrained straw-man criticisms. > > Oh right, I don't agree with you that it works in *any* > noticeable way so *I* must have created a straw-man to > argue against. This line of debate sounds familiar, you > can't prove it so it's *me* that's wrong, I'm just too > stupid to understand you. Duh.
Wrong six ways to Sunday. It isn't that you're too stupid; you're *unwilling to extend yourself* beyond your preconceptions. And I don't choose my words at random: I referred to how it is *said to work*, which doesn't deny your contention that it doesn't work in any noticeable way (or at all, for that matter). So you can't use the disagreement excuse; I've acknowledged that I'm very dubious as to whether it actually works. My beef with your position is that you don't know how it's *said* to work. You *have* created straw men to argue against, as I and tartbrain have pointed out in some detail. That, of course, doesn't mean your conclusion is wrong, only that you've used inaccurate premises to justify it. (Well, wrong three ways to Sunday, anyway.) > And there's me who actually learned how to draw up > horoscopes MANUALLY, thus realising the amazing truth > behind the maths. It's bollocks. You wont find a jyotishee > to admit that because they probably all use computers and > who knows, maybe they still think the sun goes round the > earth. Just a straw-man of course, the fact it makes no > physical sense is irrelevant to how well it works.......* That's correct, it's irrelevant. If you could get *that* straight in your mind, and understand *why* it's irrelevant, you'd be in much better shape to argue that it doesn't work. Plus which, being able to do the calculations, manually or otherwise, is an irrelevant skill in this context. The math isn't bollocks; it's your understanding of what the math is designed to do that's bollocks. > * Just in case you don't get that sarcasm, I am waiting > really patiently for some evidence, you'd think it'd be > forthcoming and unarguable after all these years but I've > not seen it. I've looked too, and seen jyotishees myself > and met countless believers, all to no avail. Nothing > beyond wishful thinking, projection and selective editing. I'm not quite so absolute, but otherwise we have almost no disagreement here. > Funny eh? And also rather suspicious, still maybe the > the practise that seems not to work actually does but > untraceably, maybe that's what I don't understand eh? Non sequitur. > Call me fussy but I like things to be demonstrable in a > way that discounts any alternative explanations, especially > woo-woo or self-delusion. That's just me, moon in > sagittarius. Entirely reasonable position to take. But in and of itself, it doesn't debunk astrology.
