Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The answer to the astrology/Jyotish test
TurquoiseB wrote: > > All they'd have to do is make a *concrete*, > *verifiable* prediction about the near future, > with absolutely no bullshit vague language > in the prediction, and then see if it comes > true. If it did, I'd be impressed. But it > seems that's too much to ask of those who > believe in astrology and Jyotish. You will have a major life change in the next two years. ;-) However, you misunderstand that astrology is not about concrete black and white predictions. It is a weather report of the propensity for an event. However it is far better than a WAG (Wild Ass Guess). As I have said before there is something too astrology. It is not a junk science. The criticism of it by people who have never tried to learn it is about like villagers say in the Amazon where they've never seen a satellite phone and a visitor has one and they start taking about the crazy man talking to a box. There is a wide gap in knowledge. With the proper data I've never seen a chart fail to disclose the career path that a person took or will take. Many people go to astrologers to actually find if they are on the right career path. I've never seen a chart with proper data fail why the person was having difficulty in life with marriage or relationships. Often when someone asks why they are going through such a bad time one can about guess that one of the lunar nodes in transit is causing the problem. You can assure them when it will go away and it does. What you can't do is look at an ephemeris and see the likely hood of some precise event happening. You have to have a subject to see that. It can be a person or entity such as a country. One thing you will have a really difficult time with is that many astrologers, particularly western astrologers, have big egos. You can imagine if they get predictions right time after time without a strong spiritual base the ego gets bloated. I've seen this with jyotishis too but mainly ones from the west who have also a background in western astrology and not a strong spiritual base. I once attended an event with both western and eastern astrologers. Many of the western astrologers reminded me of Amway salesmen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The answer to the astrology/Jyotish test
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > On Jun 7, 2009, at 2:27 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > OK, there *was* a bit of a "cheat" in this test. > > But only a bit of one. > > Just a "bit" of a cheat, Barry? LOL... > The person never existed! > > But it was your test, so you get to > make up the rules. But I don't think > that was playing fair. JMO. I thought it was a fascinating test when Dorothy Dunnett posed it. So did she, when it turns out that the original astrologer came up with inter- pretations of the chart of a fictional character based on his fictional birth date that matched fairly well the description of him in over 3000 pages of novels. *And*, the two people who gave the test here a try did pretty well, too. Go figure. > > The person whose birth data was given was the > > subject of a six-volume series of books by the > > person I consider the greatest writer of the > > English language in the 20th century. He was > > fictional. > > > > *However*, Francis Crawford, Earl of Lymond > > was also one of the most meticulously imagined > > and researched characters in the history of > > literature. His creator was Dorothy Dunnett, > > considered by many the greatest writer in > > Scottish history. > > > You probably have never heard of her, > > I've heard of her. > > > other > > than in mentions of her by me on this forum. > > The reason is that she wrote historical fiction, > > which is not everyone's cuppa tea. > > I love hysterical fiction... > > > But Dorothy > > wrote historical fiction with a precision and > > with a level of "due diligence" that most > > historians have never achieved. Dorothy never > > "fudged" anything having to do with the periods > > of time and the characters -- both real and > > imagined -- she wrote about. She would typically > > spend a minimum of a year researching the place > > and the time she was to write about, reading > > literally hundreds of books about it, going there > > personally to get the "vibe" of the place and its > > people, thoroughly immersing herself in the place > > and the time, and then starting to write. > > > > She wrote about Lymond for 15 years, in a six- > > volume set of novels known as The Lymond Chronicles. > > If anyone on earth can be said to have had a real > > existence, it is someone who has thus been focused > > on by a great writer so intently, and for so long. > > Doesn't absolve you! > Try again, this time with someone > who actually existed. I had no interest in "testing" astrology per se. I was merely doing this for fun, as was Dorothy Dunnett. If it "proved" anything, it is that people *can* make intuitive insights that have some degree of accuracy about a person -- real or fictional -- based on nothing more than their birth data. I've posted here before of what would be a *real* test of astrology, and so far all of the astrology/Jyotish buffs have failed to take me up on it. All they'd have to do is make a *concrete*, *verifiable* prediction about the near future, with absolutely no bullshit vague language in the prediction, and then see if it comes true. If it did, I'd be impressed. But it seems that's too much to ask of those who believe in astrology and Jyotish.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The answer to the astrology/Jyotish test
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > Since now John (jr_esq) has had ample opportunity to read > my post announcing my test of astrology and Jyotish and > has chosen instead to use Jyotish to "reveal" things about > David Carradine that anyone reading a newspaper already > knows :-), That isn't what he did. You have it exactly backwards. What he did was, he looked at the things we already know, then looked at Carradine's chart to see if he could find indications of these things. Working backward this way is a standard exercise that astrologers perform in order to *learn*. This is a procedure that's followed in many fields to increase the ability to make a correct prediction from current data in the future. Debunking via misrepresentation (i.e., creating straw men to attack) suggests a lack of confidence in one's ability to make a coherent argument based on facts and logic.
