Planets alignment and their influence on human behavior
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-05-2013, 06:28 PM
RE: Natal chart
(25-05-2013 09:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The thing is, you have a conclusion about the way things work, and you're trying to find explanations that would account for it. That's not science (and it's not working).
Yes, it's not science of course. It's an exercise in open-minded thinking. I see so many possibilities that the critics of astrology just don't take into account, they stopped thinking before they actually started. That's where skepticism gets you, it limits people into passive readers of journals, distrustful of their own minds. We must be ready for science to develop in radical, unexpected ways.
If we want to ever achieve anything, we have to be first good at thinking how things are possible, not just how are they impossible.

Plus of course I am a weird guy. I often observe many strange phenomena and I need to know how to make sense of them. So far it worked, so far everything was either explainable within the limits of science, or very well described by esotericism. In both cases it's very reassuring and fascinating. I'm glad that I am not insane and hallucinating, at least not in any way known to medical science. I am observing, though the toll for that observation is an inability to control and test it all.

You are potentially a very valuable person to me, if you understand physics. You could either explain me some things, suggest possible mechanisms for something, or point out which hypotheses are factually incorrect, so I can drop them.
Some of what I say might make sense to you. I am not trying to convince you, what I'm trying is to raise interest, fascinate you and give you inspiration, a broader passion for physics than just what you read in journals. And perhaps the ability to suspend your judgement, the ability not to judge one way or another until more data shows up, even should it take years.

Nothing is infallible, not even scientists. In my country, the Academy of Sciences has a Skeptics club, very influential in media. Would you believe this skeptic club disbelieves in magnetoperception of animals? Magnetic reception of animals is a well-known scientific fact. Yet my national Skeptic club placed the refusal on the first page of their website, with everyone's full consent. It is easy to see how skeptics may turn into denialists of anything that one of them does not like or does not understand. Especially if they sit in powerful chairs and government or funding committees, since the Communist era, long since they did any actual research.


(25-05-2013 09:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  If it experienced any electromagnetic interaction, it would absorb or emit photons (by definition, the mediators of electromagnetism). Therefore it would be visible. Dark matter is the term we use for something we don't understand - the universe behaves as if there were more mass than is observable. That doesn't mean it can be anything we don't understand.
That depends. If I wanted to search for light emissions of dark matter, I'd search for it very close up, in interaction with our matter. There's this professor James DeMeo, who repeats the experiments of Wilhelm Reich. One of things he did, he built basically a huge capacitor, a room with capacitor walls. This room accumulates some kind of "energy" (pretty much a plasma-like stuff), that is said to interact with matter and living organisms. DeMeo reports things like alteration of physical parameters of water, faster growth of plants and so on.

There's this VACOR tube experiment, where a tube unconnected to any kind of voltage but left in the accumulator for long enough starts emitting an anomalous blue glow, when stroked by hand. DeMeo says similar glow may be seen at materials like metal stripes, but much harder to photograph. This experiment is also a repeated Reich's experiment.
Generally, this energy he calls "orgone" seems to react to metal surfaces - specially metals layered with plastics, IOW, capacitors. Also, water surfaces and flow. Everything else is pretty much transparent to it, but it does get slowed down and concentrated at least to a degree in these layered metal/organic/liquid structures. And what is more structured than a living organism? Every living organism has an underlying concentration of "orgone", that's how it can be measured how it's living and vital or not.

It seems also plentiful in nature and the universe. Blue glowing astronauts in vacuum? (and here)
Auroras at the tree-tops?

Surprisingly, a standard neutron meter, if charged in the orgone accumulator, exhibits also an anomalous behavior. Among other things, it reacts to proximity of thunderstorm (an electric phenomenon) as if it measured a neutron burst. Of course it can't be a neutron burst.
This is fascinating for me and I hope it is even more fascinating to you, you know the physics.

I am convinced that even though it is not any kind of electric energy, it does react to electric fields, maybe it has electric field or polarity of its own. I would say this is a closely connected phenomenon to electro-static charge. Maybe this "orgone" has something to do with the theoretically postulated vertical, scalar electric waves. Maybe its buildup underlies the action of regular electricity as we know it, but it may also flow in nature with the dynamics of rivers, weather...
The meter that I mentioned, it works by projecting a regular electric field and showing on a scale how much it drops in presence of certain objects. As if something in living objects would dampen it, some kind of counter-acting field.

I'd say a lot of it makes sense, though it would require the science backtrack itself quite a bit. Back to the times of Michelson, Morley, Tesla, Maxwell, Reich... Back to the time when scalar waves were just dismissed as theoretical and ether as a myth, only to have it crawled back through the window as dark matter.
And you know what? There would be nothing wrong about it. Proverbial heads would roll and textbooks would burn I suppose, but science would stand.

(25-05-2013 09:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  By definition there can't be much, if any, in our own solar system. We can predict the motion of the objects in our solar system extremely accurately by modelling only the observable masses (the sun, planets, and debris). There is no unknown gravitationally interacting matter in our solar system.

Or if there is, then it is in extremely tiny amounts, and whatever other interaction it might cause would be statistically insignificant compared to what we do know about.
I have searched for scientific studies on the presence of dark matter in the solar system. Some said there is a lot of it, one found none at all, not even in the vicinity. And whatever the amount, I don't have the knowledge and imagination to tell whether it is enough for my observations or isn't. So I suspend my judgement on that and stick with what I know.

(25-05-2013 09:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  A self-influencing extradimensional superconsciousness isn't a theory, it's just a bunch of words you've put together to ignore the limits of physical, observable reality.
These words were a small hint at the teaching of esotericism, esoteric cosmology and so on... This is supposed to be the "subjective side of life" that transcendental experiences let us look into. I found this teaching useful for my personal use and so do many astrologers and esotericists, but of course most people have quite different needs.

I'm just saying, if science ever had an opportunity to investigate, esotericism offers a comprehensive list of hypotheses about the unseen world to test. Subtle body charts, numbers and properties of dimensions, interplay of natural forces and so on, all prepared for testing.

(25-05-2013 09:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  If influences on birth aren't important then why care about a natal chart?

That still leaves the problem of why different people react differently (different 'initial patterns', I suppose, but there must be a mechanism for differentiation). As you note, we are all exposed to the same cosmic events equally.
We are all different. But astrology says we get even more different since the moment of our first breath, we get the unique momentary pattern of "cosmic weather" imprinted into us. Everything else that comes later is already distorted and filtered by this initial pattern. Everything that came before was shielded by the mother's body and kept out by not breathing.

(25-05-2013 09:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  To effect people's thoughts and behaviour, there must be some effect on the brain (something which would affect the electrical activity within it). Does it initiate signals in neurons? Does it inhibit them? Does it stimulate or inhibit the the hormone and neurotransmitter production centres?

If so then there's necessarily a reproducible electrochemical effect. Is the brain of a corpse affected? Is an isolated piece of brain matter? Is an isolated neuron? Are free neurotransmitters affected? All of that would be testable.
Good questions. I have read up something on it and my experience backs it up.
We imagine conductors of electricity as hollow tubes with electrons flowing inside. What if this is not how they work? What if all the matter, for example conductors is surrounded and permeated by its dark matter counterpart? What if any power going through a conductor goes actually on the outside, but has to drag the electrons inside, like pebbles in a torrent? What is the electricity, is it a heap of excess electrons in a battery? Or is it this rather mysterious property of a charge buildup, that has no physical representation in electrons?

If you think about it and apply the same principle to nerves, then nerves are also conductors. They transmit the electro-chemical signals, but these may be just one aspect of the process. The process is initiated in the surrounding etheric counterpart of the conductor. There is an almost invisible counterpart of the whole body, that permeates the nerve and endocrine system and initiates the decisions that the biologic aspect carries out. This etheric double is not an emanation of our biology, not some field generated by the cells, but neither it is an immortal soul. It is more like a cellular template that directs the growth of tissues into the exact shape.
It is also said to be both an interface to "cosmic weather" and to even higher, subtler body-fields, even more elusive vessels of consciousness than this body. It's not an immortal soul at all, but all my sources and experiences say it is an interface to something more permanent, sometimes even an interface to the superconsciousness. But this is a domain of esotericism, not science as of yet.

Behind this is a principle of kundalini-yoga or laya/kriya/raja yoga, exercising this subtle body counterpart so that it adeptly interacts with higher transpersonal components of the human being.

(25-05-2013 09:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Pluto isn't a planet. If it is astrologically relevant nonetheless, one must explain why Haumea, Makemake, and the rest of the Kuiper belt objects aren't.
These are old lessons of mine, but IIRC, all the astronomic bodies have some influence, but only human interpretation gives it form. It depends on how the human culture can integrate a new energy into its awareness. The discovery of Uranus was a major event and it preceded the greatest revolutions ever seen - Uranus became consciously associated with revolutions. Was it the cause, or the effect? I don't know, maybe both, Uranus impacted upon the collective subconscious long before its official discovery.
Obviously, Uranus is one of transpersonal planets and these are principles not seen in ordinary people. In a sense, people are still trying to integrate the principle of Uranus into their psyche. They very well understand the principles of Mars and Venus and Jupiter etc. But every new astronomic body, specially the small, distant and very slow ones - they may be powerful, but almost impossible to understand, more so than Pluto. Perhaps humanity is almost incapable of even reacting to their influence. I'd say there is little or no aspect of human consciousness that would resonate with them, let alone could ever get properly integrated and expressed as a cultural aspect of humanity.
I know some astrologers are trying to track and infer the influences of Quaoar and Sedna in the old-fashioned way, but doubt that.

(25-05-2013 09:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  If distance is not a factor, then why limit it to the solar system (there are many extrasolar planets)? Why limit it to major planets? Several moons are larger than our moon (Titan and the Galilean moons of Jupiter). What is their effect? If, indeed, Pluto can affect us, then there are hundreds of other objects, of comparable size, which are much, much closer. What is their effect?

Distance is a factor, just not the main one. All these objects are extremely old. They have filled the visible space with their "cosmic weather" as a steady background signal. Now the influence that really matters the most are perturbations in this ever-present background signal. The most perturbations we get from Luna and the sub-saturnic planets, obviously. The shorter time of orbit, the greater frequency, the more waves we get, the more prominent they are in average man's consciousness, however this consciousness interprets them.
It is however said that for some greatly enlightened men, certain Babas, saints and avatars of India, the stars on ecliptics have a greater effect on their destiny than the planets of the solar system.

Now, if the perturbations make the difference, then obviously the objects closest to the ecliptics make the biggest waves. Objects "above" and below our ecliptics have much lesser angular momentum as our solar system is turning. Pluto with its excentric orbit is said to be most historically powerful when crossing the ecliptics, as it is now, IIRC.

As for Galilean moons, they are bound to their planet and do not have an astrologic influence of their own, the planet and moons apparently acts as one system. They might have only a hypothetical influence on someone on the "surface" of Jupiter, which is of course impossible.

(25-05-2013 09:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Natural forces obey natural laws. Everything we know of operates proportionally to distance.
Except that which is already here, the continuous radiation from the sun and stars, mixed up by the planets. The only limitation would be the light speed.

(25-05-2013 09:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Define the geometric centre of the Earth. Is it the centre of mass? The midpoint of the rotational axis? The point equidistant from the surface? The relative position of astronomical objects due to motion on the Earth's surface is (I'm getting tired of saying this) statistically insignificant.
Well, astrologically it is significant. Earth basically works as a focusing lens. A precise position changes the shape and size of the astrological "houses", the areas of life. The choice of precise house system (like Campanus) seems to be important when doing a chart of some more personally, mentally and spiritually evolved, independent and influential person. Average people do better with an averaged-out house system, like Koch.
IOW, you've got to know the person first to choose a right house system.

(25-05-2013 09:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  If there's any extrasolar influence it would have nothing to do with the ecliptic (which the planets also deviate from by several degrees). The central galactic plane (surely the greatest source of extrasolar anything, in our galaxy) is at quite an angle to it (just look at the sky if you need proof of that!). Any effect from stars off the galactic plane (such as, those in most constellations - which, you should know, are just made up things; their component stars have no relation to each other) would be dwarfed by the effect of the main body of the milky way itself.
As I said, what we're looking for is the angular velocity relative to our solar system. As for the signal, then there are many ways how many signals can exist next to a strong one.
Astrologically most notable mechanism is, that the stronger is the signal, the more all other stars and planets just take it in as a background, mix it up individually and send it further. It would be received unchanged perhaps only if it was received vertically roughly from North and South, without angular change, from constellations like Great Bear or Pleiades.
I'd say a the signal of galactic center is no more noticeable to us than a tsunami wave is noticeable for bacteria in the sea water. Although of course some astrologers try to divine up a possible influence of the galactic center point. In case they try to do so, they can choose to display it in the software.

(25-05-2013 09:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  There's no way to reduce astronomical objects to a single frequency (orbit? rotation? one of the many, many oscillations and perturbations within that they undergo? cycles relative to earth?).

Waves are defined by frequency and amplitude. Even if we allow, for the sake of argument, a unique frequency for each astrological object, that still leaves the problem of how their effects might be of comparable strength - if you try to tune a radio too far from a source you get static (effectively random white noise). It still leaves the problem of the nervous system can be variably tuned...
I don't know the exact mechanism, I can't feel it. It takes hours and days to change, nobody can observe the cosmic weather that in real time.
But something tells me that the human body and especially its etheric counterpart has the same basic parts as a planet. It has two poles, a field around it, conduits of energy and many lesser or greater vortexes of energy, that rotate at a certain rate and receive and give out energy. Not all of these centers and conduits are active in every person. Yes, I mean nadis and chakras, the things that work and look basically as a plasma nozzle discharge, only a steady structure. I am physically aware of them, more so than of my internal organs. I am sure that chakras and nadis belong to us just as much as stomach, heart, veins, nerves and bones.

And I would not be surprised at all if some planetary frequencies resonated with some vortexes and conduits of the etheric body, based on the frequencies of energy that flows in them. Obviously it can't be the same frequency of 1 period per 12 years in case of Jupiter, but:
- the orbital wave period may carry secondary modulated frequencies of that planet, its unique signature,
- the chakra frequencies may have to be just in harmonic ratio, not numerically the same.
As you can see from the chart, they are very much associated with major nerve centers and endocrine glands and may thus very directly influence our behavior, or our capablility to behave in some way if we try to.

(25-05-2013 09:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  With that many wave sources, one of two thing would happen. Either the more powerful sources would completely dominate (as, indeed happens in the real world with real solar winds), or, for sources of comparable strength, it would rapidly become a very noisy, chaotic system (by definition completely unpredictable).
C'mon, this is not more complex that the radio space around Earth and there's no reason why it couldn't work on a similar basis.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2013, 08:37 PM
RE: Natal chart
Luminon, no offense, but I've read less scientifically illiterate posts from Flat Earthers. Nothing you said even remotely approaches any type of recognizable reality. You took a hyperbolic trajectory past sense and are well on your way to the Woo Nebula.

I can no longer help you. God speed, and good luck.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Phaedrus's post
25-05-2013, 09:37 PM
RE: Natal chart
(25-05-2013 08:37 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Luminon, no offense, but I've read less scientifically illiterate posts from Flat Earthers. Nothing you said even remotely approaches any type of recognizable reality. You took a hyperbolic trajectory past sense and are well on your way to the Woo Nebula.

I can no longer help you. God speed, and good luck.

Well, that's what happens when you insert woo in the Science forum.Drinking Beverage

Sort of a coffee enema.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2013, 09:54 PM
RE: Natal chart
(25-05-2013 03:29 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  Chas he has asked for the scientific explanation behind it, he isn't pushing it as true so it fits here. If you dont like it the solution is simple. You dont have to read it. Wasnt difficult was it Drinking Beverage

It doesn't fit here. It's woo and belongs in the Pseudoscience section. Stop being an idiot.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2013, 10:24 PM
RE: Natal chart
(25-05-2013 06:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(25-05-2013 09:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The thing is, you have a conclusion about the way things work, and you're trying to find explanations that would account for it. That's not science (and it's not working).
Yes, it's not science of course. It's an exercise in open-minded thinking. I see so many possibilities that the critics of astrology just don't take into account, they stopped thinking before they actually started. That's where skepticism gets you, it limits people into passive readers of journals, distrustful of their own minds. We must be ready for science to develop in radical, unexpected ways.
If we want to ever achieve anything, we have to be first good at thinking how things are possible, not just how are they impossible.

If you have your conclusion before you start testing, I'd say that's the very opposite of open-mindedness. Skepticism doesn't limit thinking, it demands evidence to avoid being mistaken, whenever possible. Science starts with a hypothesis, but that will be thrown out if it doesn't fit the evidence. There is nothing closed-minded about that.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes amyb's post
25-05-2013, 11:39 PM
RE: Natal chart
(25-05-2013 06:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(25-05-2013 09:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The thing is, you have a conclusion about the way things work, and you're trying to find explanations that would account for it. That's not science (and it's not working).
Yes, it's not science of course. It's an exercise in open-minded thinking. I see so many possibilities that the critics of astrology just don't take into account, they stopped thinking before they actually started. That's where skepticism gets you, it limits people into passive readers of journals, distrustful of their own minds. We must be ready for science to develop in radical, unexpected ways.
If we want to ever achieve anything, we have to be first good at thinking how things are possible, not just how are they impossible.

If something is predicable - as astrology is, according to astrologers - then it is testable.

If you can come up with repeatable, demonstrable evidence of astrology - well, James Randi has a million dollars set aside with your name on it.

(25-05-2013 09:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-05-2013 03:29 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  Chas he has asked for the scientific explanation behind it, he isn't pushing it as true so it fits here. If you dont like it the solution is simple. You dont have to read it. Wasnt difficult was it Drinking Beverage

It doesn't fit here. It's woo and belongs in the Pseudoscience section. Stop being an idiot.

This thread took off on the woo-woo train a long time ago.

(25-05-2013 08:37 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Luminon, no offense, but I've read less scientifically illiterate posts from Flat Earthers. Nothing you said even remotely approaches any type of recognizable reality. You took a hyperbolic trajectory past sense and are well on your way to the Woo Nebula.

I can no longer help you. God speed, and good luck.

Seems to me I've heard something like that before. I like yours better; much more polite.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2013, 02:31 AM (This post was last modified: 26-05-2013 03:06 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Natal chart
(25-05-2013 11:39 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If something is predicable - as astrology is, according to astrologers - then it is testable.

If you can come up with repeatable, demonstrable evidence of astrology - well, James Randi has a million dollars set aside with your name on it.
Well, astrologers are wrong. They don't know what standards of testability science has and so they claim it's testable, but it isn't. They may fondly remember the rare cases when it gave them clear results, but nobody else can obtain such results at will. Not as is the state of astrology, astrologers and scientific equipment today. Even astrologers don't understand astrology and they don't try to - what I wrote was a small attempt of mine at what they would have to think of, in order to really understand astrology.

Astrology would actually require more scientific disciplines to test properly, some of them social and psychologic sciences. It relies heavily on people and people are non-deterministic - so what we'd have to do here is testing physics with instruments of psychology (like psychologic archetypes). Which is bollocks.

If I meet an astrologer who claims his method is testable, I'll tell him how wrong he is. If I meet a skeptic who claims that astrology is impossible, I'll tell him what I told you above. It is possible, but helluva lot untestable - or unlikely, if you want to call it that way. In the end, both astrologers and skeptics will hate me. Drinking Beverage


(25-05-2013 08:37 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Luminon, no offense, but I've read less scientifically illiterate posts from Flat Earthers. Nothing you said even remotely approaches any type of recognizable reality. You took a hyperbolic trajectory past sense and are well on your way to the Woo Nebula.

I can no longer help you. God speed, and good luck.
You think I'm both 100 % sure and 100 % serious? Nope, only what I can personally observe (not much), not what goes on between the planets. But all the attempts of skeptics to say why astrology (and other woo) is impossible, seem very simplistic to me. If that's how they make hypotheses, I'd be afraid my brain weakens.

Filox asked about astrology so I told him and I also showed how it how a form of "astrology" might be hypothetically possible (not certain). It is a question of future decades if the science will develop along my predictions.

(25-05-2013 10:24 PM)amyb Wrote:  If you have your conclusion before you start testing, I'd say that's the very opposite of open-mindedness. Skepticism doesn't limit thinking, it demands evidence to avoid being mistaken, whenever possible. Science starts with a hypothesis, but that will be thrown out if it doesn't fit the evidence. There is nothing closed-minded about that.
What if it isn't conclusion? What if it's observation and hypothesis? It seems to me that all everyone presume that everything observable must be by definition testable. Yet people looked at stars for many thousand years before they had telescopes, watched birds yet couldn't fly. There is a long way between observation, hypothesis and test.

The original meaning of skeptical philosophy was precisely that, do not choose any possibility, doubt them all, even if one is likely true. Keep all the options open.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2013, 03:06 AM
RE: Natal chart
Luminon,

I don't see anyone here saying it's impossible, but simply that there is no evidence ever in the history of the world that an astrologer has been able to make reliable predictions that would pass scientific scrutiny. That's not to say it could never happen, but the burden of proof is firmly on the side of astrologers. So, there's very little point talking about mechanisms until you show that some phenomena exists that needs to be explained.

So do you have a hypothesis? Do you have a falsifiable claim to make, and how do you intend to rigorously test your claim?
A hypothesis is not just a question, it's not just an idea: It's an idea that makes specific predictions that differ from those of alternative hypotheses, and by testing we can determine which predictions hold true and which are disqualified. If that isn't what you mean, if you just mean an idea or a question then you aren't using the word "hypothesis" correctly (in the scientific sense, as this is after all a science forum).

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
26-05-2013, 03:16 AM
RE: Natal chart
Chas is right. The Science section is a place for discussion about science. Astrology is not science.

Wikipedia Wrote:Astrology has been rejected by the scientific community as having no explanatory power for describing the universe (see pseudoscience). Scientific testing of astrology has been conducted, and no evidence has been found to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions. Where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been falsified. . . . There is no proposed mechanism of action by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth that does not contradict well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology

Therefore threads about astrology do not belong in the Science section. QED.

Allowing discussions of astrology in the Science section is equivalent to allowing discussions of creationism in a biology classroom.

If I were a newbie and discovered an extended thread about astrology in the so-called science section of a forum I was considering joining, I'd go somewhere else.

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cufflink's post
26-05-2013, 03:45 AM (This post was last modified: 26-05-2013 04:01 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Natal chart
(26-05-2013 03:06 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Luminon,

I don't see anyone here saying it's impossible, but simply that there is no evidence ever in the history of the world that an astrologer has been able to make reliable predictions that would pass scientific scrutiny. That's not to say it could never happen, but the burden of proof is firmly on the side of astrologers. So, there's very little point talking about mechanisms until you show that some phenomena exists that needs to be explained.
Nobody said it's impossible? Eh, sorry. I thought someone did. Or was it just Filox, asking about the possibilities? Well, he certainly got his answer.

I have to point out, that astrologers can not bear the burden of proof, even though they should. They work in the area of social sciences (people), yet they make claims about natural sciences. I doubt anybody can defend that.

As for phenomena... They exist, we just differ in their interpretation. Were certain experiments successful or unsuccessful? Were they a proof for something or weren't? What was their funding and who were their opponents? Why did science go down a particular road in this century, despite of predictions?

(26-05-2013 03:06 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  So do you have a hypothesis? Do you have a falsifiable claim to make, and how do you intend to rigorously test your claim?
Did I make a claim? I thought I make a fascinating lecture into the world of astrology and how it is hypothetically possible to prove. My claim was, we would need a different paradigm to do that. We still don't know what kind of universe do we live in, is it solid, material universe with some invisible waves in it, or is it energetic, invisible universe with some traces of solid matter in it? If it's the latter, why don't we treat it like that? Why do we keep using our yardstick on the universe?

I'm concerned with methodology of thinking when forming hypotheses. It is philosophy of science, not science. I think without a good philosophy we tend to use subconsciously our standards of visible solid world on the science. I don't see much ability to think outside of the box and this is what I think I can help with.

...I never actually thought of that before seriously, but do you think I might actually be a philosopher (I scored 9.5 out of 10)? Do you think there is a way to give people an early warning?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: