No - Beliefs are based on attachment. *Learning* is built on observations.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote:
>
> salyavin, I know of two jyotishis who made predictions about the last US
> election. Yep, one chose Obama and one chose Romney. Does that mean that
> Obama chooser is the better jyotishi? And what if it does? Why does that
> matter? Because basically we humans want to be happy. So even when we're
> infants, we become little scientists, observing what we need to do in order
> to be happy, making adjustments here and there along the way. We could even
> use turq's analogy of surfing the waves. We all want to be happy while
> surfing the waves of life.
>
> Now Adyashanti says deeper than the
> impulse to seek pleasure and avoid pain is the impulse to awaken. Whoops, I
> got into rereading his book The End of Your World. He also says that you
> can't have truth without love and you can't have love without truth. But I
> guess this is off topic ha ha.
>
>
> Anyway, at this point I'm wondering about knowledge and science and
> belief. Firstly I think we all agree that there are only probabilities
> of certainty. Meaning that not even science knows anything with 100%
> certainty. It seems like the main difference is that some thinkers think that
> direct observation is the way to the most valid knowledge. While
> other thinkers think that the knowledge of trusted others also has high
> validity. One assumes that that is also based on observation.
>
> Meaning, aren't even beliefs based on observations?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: salyavin808 <fintlewoodlewix@...>
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 1:27 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: RD's astrological analysis
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
> --- 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?
>
