--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula <chivukula.ravi@...> wrote: > > Oh dear scientific salyavin, > > I am the only one who's doing the heavy lifting in favor of astrology here > and I wasn't even too interested in the first place. I have clearly > articulated the scope, parameters of how I use astrology and the goals I > have. Considering the limitations of astrology and the reputation of > astrology I have a very scientific approach that you should be proud of > salyavin !!! > > You surely missed the generous compliments Ann, raunchy, Share, Steve, Jim, > LG, empty bill and others (non-active posters) offline have directed my way. > Surely this is not some dumb, naive audience I'm dealing with here.
Generous compliments mean nothing as far as whether astrology has any actual reality outside of you saying nice things about people you've been interacting with for *years* on a chat forum. That people believe it is no surprise to me, people still believe in god etc. People can be weird in how they chose to see the world. Approval, eternal life and predictability are going to feature pretty high on most people wish list of things they'd like to be true. That you may have a handle on personality analysis says nothing about the working of horoscopes as they are open to interpretation. As I say, to convince a sceptic like moi you need to make predictions so we can see how it fares against the randomness of reality. What was the one I suggested the other day? > You must suffer from some Oppositional defiance disorder? I "suffer" from Inability to suspend disbelief due to lack of evidence order. The more I look into it the less convinced I am. > > As Barry would say - what purpose does it solve? Whose suffering are you > helping to resolve? > > John will come across as stupid with his predictions. No one can legislate > reality, no one has an insight into reality. That's what happens studying > with that idiot Sanjay. "no one has an insight into reality" Ah, here's something we agree on. > > I said I don't know how astrology was cognized, I don't care how it works - > it does, but your arguments are irrelevant. Not if you want to understand how it works. "Cognized" is a great word, I love how it supplants "worked out" in the minds of new agers. No more do we have to test hypotheses against heavily checked data, someone has "cognized" the truth! But I shouldn't be harsh, ideas can come from anywhere, all science starts with a guess, but ideas have to be tested against reality and this is where astrology fails as you yourself admit. Remember, the plural of anecdote is *not* data. People believing things is *not* evidence. Double blind testing is the only way to work out what is from what isn't and it's been done hilariously with astrology many times. People can't pick out their horoscopes from other peoples. In one test loads of people were given the same reading and asked how accurate it was, guess what? They all rated it as highly accurate. Simple psychology, we see what we want to see and fill in the cracks without realising. Astrology is people thinking about people. It's anthropomorphism taken to it's ultimate conclusion and includes actual planets and stars - except they are really avatars acting in the same way! Good dodge whoever thought of that ;-) > > They assigned certain inner qualities on to planets and yes they use the > actual mathematical calculations and astronomy. Apparently it has some > validity, no one has ever been disappointed with my interpretations. No, of course they haven't. But it isn't a proof that astrology is a science based on positions of stars and planets. It's *you* Ravi. As Richard would say - go figure, LoL! I'm trying but it doesn't work. Must be my mahadashum do you think?
