Blaine: This has nothing to do with my Mormon
upbringing, but I beg to differ with your statement,
" Astrology is not science. They make
observations, but they have no
> theories to explain the universe or any part of it. Their ideas cannot be
> tested.
> theories to explain the universe or any part of it. Their ideas cannot be
> tested.
Anyone familiar with the subject of astrology
will tell you much research has already been done. For instance, the
Rosecrucians did elaborate research on the relationship between astrological
sign of birth (sun sign) and longevity. This is definitely testable, and
in fact the results were rather astounding--women born in the sign Gemini
consistently tended to outlive women born in any other sign, and the same with
men born under the sign Taurus, with Gemini men coming in a close second.
For both men and women, Sagitarrius was the shortest lived sign.
I believe I could also show that certain signs
favor certain others in choosing marriage partners--or friends. This would
be a simple test, and not hard to design an experiment using all of the known
statisical methods familiar to scientists.
Your comments actually show your almost total
ignorance of the subject of Astrology--I could say much more, but will suffice
for now.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 6:14
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
POLYANYI
> Science needs math, but math doesn't need science.
>
> Mathematicians and theologians both can and often do start with
> premises which they find interesting but are not necessarily rooted in
> the real world, then they follow out the logical implications of those
> premises. The analogy breaks down in that theologians' conclusions can be
> tried against God's truth as revealed in the bible, but there's no way
> that I know of to check the conclusions of mathematicians.
>
> Astrology is not science. They make observations, but they have no
> theories to explain the universe or any part of it. Their ideas cannot be
> tested. They cannot tell the future as they claim to do. They cannot
> explain peoples' personality quirks as they claim to do. Astrology is to
> astronomy as professional wrestling is to the olympics.
>
> vincent j. fulton
>
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:49:57 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> writes:
> > Vince wrote:
> > > Theology is more like math than science
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by this. Math is the language of
> > science.
> > Without math, science cannot do what it does. Maybe you can
> > elaborate
> > on what you had in mind when you said that theology is more like
> > math
> > than science.
> >
> > Vince wrote:
> > > you start with an assumption or set of assumptions,
> > > regardless of how much they do or do not seem
> > > to reflect a real-world situation, then you derive
> > > conclusions from those assumptions.
> >
> > Interesting. I'm not trained in theology, but it sounds like you
> > are
> > saying that theology does not care how much the assumptions they
> > make
> > fit the real world? Is that really what you meant to say?
> >
> > All disciplines of study, whether theology or science, make
> > assumptions
> > and reason from those assumptions.
> >
> > Science reasons from the premise that Truth can be apprehended only
> > through the physical senses. Theology maintains an additional
> > assumption, that we can gain knowledge through the spirit.
> >
> > Vince wrote:
> > > Astrology is founded on fairy tales, superstition, etc.
> > > To those who accept the basic premises of astrology,
> > > that heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on
> > > peoples' personalities and the events which occur in
> > > peoples' lives, it's easy to believe the stuff pumped
> > > out by astrologers. It makes sense to those who believe
> > > the basic premises.
> >
> > Are you saying that there is no foundation at all for astrology?
> > Doesn't Gen. 1:14 say, "let them be for signs..."? Doesn't Daniel
> > 6:27
> > and Acts 2:19 affirm this also? Wasn't the birth of Christ marked
> > with
> > a star?
> >
> > I do not believe astrology is right for the believer in Christ, but
> > I
> > think you go too far to say that astrology is founded only on fairy
> > tales and superstition. I think Blaine would disagree too. :-)
> > You
> > are presenting a belief from your own culture and value system which
> > is
> > rooted in objectivity and materialism.
> >
> > Vince wrote:
> > > Astronomy is, like all of the hard sciences, based
> > > upon the scientific method. Observation with quantified
> > > measurements of tangible things like mass, temperature,
> > > speed, etc. Brainstorming / dreaming / imagining a
> > > hypothesis. Making logical predictions based upon that
> > > hypothesis. Experimenting to test those predictions.
> > > Confirming or denying the validity of the hypothesis
> > > based upon the results of the experiments. Reproduction
> > > of the experiments and results by other scientists.
> > > Peer review of the final package.
> >
> > You may not realize this, but astrology also proceeds along these
> > paths.
> > They observe the heavens, calculate positions, and they correlate
> > it
> > with events on earth. So what is the difference?
> >
> > Well, one philosopher has suggested that astrology attempts to
> > modify
> > their theory such that eventually their theory becomes
> > unfalsifiable.
> > Astronomy, on the other hand, has followed a method called "Strong
> > Inference" whereby they disproved theories and constructed new
> > hypotheses which they also attempted to falsify. So the idea is
> > that
> > progress toward truth is better made when we construct hypotheses
> > that
> > are potentially falsifiable and then attempt to falsify it. The
> > underlying thinking here is that it is much easier to demonstrate
> > one
> > disproof to dismiss an erroneous idea rather than an infinite number
> > of
> > proofs to try and bolster an idea.
> >
> > Peace be with you.
> > David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.
> >
> > ----------
> > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you
> > may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
> > http://www.InnGlory.org
> >
> > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you
> > have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> >
> >
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>
