What star sign are you...

Should the fact that I hate my star sign make any difference to how I behave or will my essential Leoness always shine through?

Have Too Much Knowledge on this, Official, due to astrologer grandfather (Leo). And mother (Taurus) who bought January US Cosmo every year to get the Horoscopes For The Year with what sign was most compatible in the sack, etc. Also, my Indian friends are VERY horoscopey.

Kate, what about you?

I'm not sure how accurate this is, as Ned could tell you I'm probably as far from outgoing as humanly possible.

However, whenever anyone points out that I'm far too neurotic to be a true Aries, I point out my unfortunately Cancer rising.

"When the mewn iz in the thirteenth hahse..."

what's everyones chinese star sign?

i'm a sheep or a goat or something. i think its supposed to mean that i'm very quiet and reserved. ie everything that i am not!!!!!

Year of the rooster.

Cock a doodle doo!

And scarey star-sign coincidence, every girl I have been out with seriously has been Gemini. Including two girls with the same birthday. Is this wierd?

I'm on the cusp between Aries and Taurus. I tend to be Aries in most UK horoscopes, but people who believe in these things tell me I'm far more like a Taurus. Sometimes they tell me that since I was born prematurely then they should obviously go by the starsign I should have been born in rather than when I was actually born; at these times it's normally best not to mention that I was probably actually due during whatever the one after Taurus is, but just to nod and make agreeing noises.

Going out with someone who shares your birthday: dud. Although its dudness had very little to do with sharing birthdays and more to do with not being able to understand each other's general life outlook at all, but I like to think that disproves the whole astrology thing. Well, being born on the same date as Hitler, I would want to think that, really, although I also shared my birthday with the most fastidiously neat and organised and logical maths teacher at my school, and neatness and organisation and logic aren't me at all.

(Grr. The shift key on this computer is knackered and I'm in severe need of caffeine but have been placed in a no-food-or-drink office.)

My Chinese horoscope is the monkey.

But I am thinking it.

Pish! Pish and fie, say not such things. Har! Har! Har! Er, uhm. Has anyone seen my coat?

(I've just read the page Graham linked to, specifically the bit about monkeys. "Decision making is easy for them," it says, amidst praise of their diplomatic skillz, powers of memory and general clueful well- informed nature. Oh dear me, no. Still, "they tend to talk too much, driving friends away with their overlong explanations and endless chatter," now that seems fair enough, if only on the internet and not in real life...)

Indeed, Nick does not say to his friends "I'm going to have to stop you there, Lucy" because not all his friends are called Lucy. Furthermore, he has never said to me "I'm going to have to stop you there, Lucy, because we discussed this before. I refer you to Wednesday, 12th April 1998" because I did not know him until approximately August 1999. So Nick speaks the truth. Will that do?

However I disagree with the point he makes where he says he is not constantly saying "I'll have to stop you there, Lucy..". He must frequently be saying this, since Lucy has a terrible memory and will tell you the same things over and over again if you let her.

I am sagittarius. I have no idea what this means. I am not half horse, nor do I own a bow and arrow.

load of shit! no offence anyone.

chinese sign = deep fried squid

Erm....for a spot-on book about star signs....try "How to Spot a Bastard by His Star Sign"

excellent work....and damn funny too..

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312284861/ref=ase _jwbook/103-9117694-7503801

I always likes Sagittarians and other Geminizzz, but insert obligatory I-don't-believe-in-this-crap-type-statement here.

I am one.

yes yes yes YES

I was born December 29. My astrological sign is Capricorn. I'm sure this is all just coincidence as well:

Capricorn is symbolized by the Goat. You're motivated, determined and practical. You see no need to take unnecessary risks. Career is a major concern for you; advancement and recognition are alluring concepts. You are ambitious and strong, but also somewhat conservative.

It's an amazing coincidence that this could easily describe me.

I have read up on my astrological sign mainly for fun, though. Astrology.com is fantastic for finding out more information about your sign. Most of what I read ends up applying very well to me, but some of the things I read are so laughably wrong I have to shake my head. It's all fun, though. Hmmm. What are my so-called "compatible signs"? I'd like to know just because I'm curious.

I haven't checked out the Astrology.com site since that time, though. And I'm no longer interested in "compatible signs", whatever that was supposed to mean. As for what I am Chinese astrology-wise, I was born in the year of the Goat. Great, a goat. *rolls eyes*

Read about the debate here.

It's like if someone asked me to predict what would happen in every baseball game this year and I said "well, the stars say that many balls will be thrown. People will try to hit these balls and some will succeed".

Btw, Latebloomer, the Mars effect was proven false decades ago, no? I can't believe I'm even debating astrology, Oops's comment is really all there is to it.

Two faced pig :-)

-Francis Bacon

This does, of course, depend on at what level you're working with astrology. Yes, the 'horoscopes' you read in the papers are deliberately vague, as is the astrological profile of each sign - they're going to be, they each have to describe 8-9 per cent of the population. However, if you go into this in depth it goes into a lot more detail. According to the place and time of a person's birth, the minutiae of their character can be revealed. Astrology can, really, be quite an exact practice - its just that it so often is not presented in this manner.

I probably should have said 'suggested' rather than 'revealed' there.

-- Tuomas (tuomas.alh...), July 29th, 2004.

I wasn't stating my belief in Astrology (I don't really believe in it, if you're wondering). I was posting a link to a detailed article about the debate and the controversy over the mars effect, which had a lot more to it (especially the politics behind the controversy) than is often recognized.

Oh, I'm an Aries (fairly atypical) with Sagittarius rising. So there you go.

U may vaant 2 check up on some of us caalled Hindoos - we vorship cows and burn our brides after getting them married according 2 Synastry!@@ U can phind us using Search Injun, Dank U !!

[Also, fwiw, indian astrology puts very little emphasis on personality as it's considered transient and epheremal in the first place; only any aspects on the ascendant and the nakshatra are really noted for this consideration. Not to mention ya'll are using a different zodiac to start with, as the Sidereal rulez; it accurately reflects the Ecliptic due to Precession of the Equinoxes]

a) At thid momenet you can't prove the existence of these mystical factors, just like you can't prove the existence of God. You just have to take them as granted. If some proof were to emerge, I would certainly reocnsider my opinions, but thus far no such evidence has been found, even though astrology has been studied for centuries.

b) There's a much simpler explanation behind what makes a personality: genes + environment. I can't see the need to cling to complicated explanations, when a simpler, much more pragmatic and probable explanation exists.

And if you're tired of my scientific way of thinking, then I'm tired of people saying science is just another dogmatic belief system, like religion. It isn't. Science is a method of studying the world and figuring out the most probable explanations behind the phenomena around us. Sure, science can be dogmatic and it can be wrong, I'm not denying that. But science has two things that separate it from religion: it is self-improving (meaning that it is capable of accepting it's own mistakes and fixing them) and it can actually predict what'll happen in the future. To me, science's capability to predict things is actually the biggest proof for it's greater efficiency over other world-views.

Also, I view science as mere extension of the way most people in this planet think while living their normal, everyday life. For example, if you're walking on the street, you won't probably be on constant alert for some invisible spirit to push you and make you fall over; you know that it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, that an invisible spirit is going to attack you. Similarly, if you climb on a high cliff, you're not probably gonna jump off and hope that you somehow develop the ability to fly; you know that if you jump, it is most likely that you'll just fall down and die. To me, science is just an extension of this simple, pragmatic, everyday way of viewing the world.

Next on ILE: a thread about how spooky Nostradamus is.

Tuomas, whether or not people believe in Astrology doesn't make their answering the question that is the title of this thread any sillier than answering the questions that are the basis of a lot of threads on ILX. Hell, a good number of them have responded by telling their sign and then saying that they don't care and/or don't believe in Astrology.

It's like debating whether elves or gnomes or spirits or gods exist - pointless for the both parties.

You're the only jackass who is debating. Everyone else is just saying "Hey, I'm a Cancer." Possibly they discus how similar their personality is to what their sign supposedly represents, but I haven't noticed anybody declaring that astrology ias fact or anything remotely calling for your longwinded defense of science.

I never said I was tired of your scientific way of thinking, and I never said science was just another dogmatic belief system. I'm just tired of your fucking pontificating on otherwise amusing and completely lighthearted threads.

If you think we are all stupid for participating in a thread that doesn't even resemble a serious one, then you can eat a bag of dicks.

Oh yeah, and I'm a Leo.

That's exactly why it pisses me off that anyone would have to launch into a fucking defense of science in response to a bunch of educated people telling each other their astrological signs. There's no provocation for it at all. It's like if a bunch of atheists got together and asked each other "What line from the Bible best describes your personality," and then in the middle of the discussion one of them started going off about how the Bible wasn't true. It's Captain Obvious preaching to the Choir of We Fucking Already Know.

Christ, I'm so sick of this bullshit "i'm rubber, you're glue" statement. Luckily , Tuomas explained my thoughts on it better than I ever could.

xposts haha that's pretty funny Kenan.

I'm actually a Leo on the cusp of Virgo, btw. Which means, um, my birthday is coming up soon.

http://www.astrologyzine.com/rising-sign-table.shtml

I'm a Taurus rising.

* a physical force we already know about causes astrological effects
* a physical force we don't know about causes them
* some kind of undetectable force causes them.

(c) is just silly - if it can have a physical effect, we must be able to detect it. And if it's either of the other two, how come it hasn't been noticed.

For a force from The Planets to have an effect on you, it would have to be fairly strong. I mean, gravity's a weak force, and we can detect that well enough. For the "astrological force" to have a meaningful effect on us, I assume it would have to be stronger than gravity. Because I was feeling intrigued by this, I did some back-of-an-envelope sums. Imagine you're standing in a bar, holding a pint of beer. The *gravitational* effect that the beer has on your holiday is roughly the same as the effect that Uranus has on you. Jupiter is rather stronger - it's more like standing next to a beer truck. Presumably any astrological force would have to be stronger than this, otherwise it would just get drowned out by the noise. Of all the beer in the world.

Luckily I'm not a Taurus, or I'd probably be holding a grudge. I hope Tuomas isn't a Taurus either...

haha awesome xpost to martin

a) describes my personality incredibly well (even though I'm much more partial to the way I'm described via the Myers-Briggs personality sorter)

b) pretty well describes a personality that can often be (or at least appear) to be an incredibly charming asshole.

My younger brother shares my birthday, though we are four years apart, and his personality's not so much like mine at all (though we have plenty in common interest-wise). Granted, he's got a different rising sign than I do...

I've always liked you and liked your posts, so I hope you don't take any of this personally. =) I think you should just email me after this if yo'd like to continue this conversation, as I hope this will be my last post on this thread. i've been on ILE for way too long to have made this mistake again, but my rationalization is that it was...4:?? AM! I feel kind of brave though discussing this again - in 2003 I was naive and sleepless, but now I'm just sleepless...

Aside from a quick answer to b), which is simply that you're quite misinformed if you think the purpose or function of astrology is to explain personality in the first place (maybe a corrupted, westernized semblance of astrology exclusively focuses on that, and even in the West this only started in the half-century after Freud) ->Tuomas I already know that using the methodolgy of modern science any "proof" is impossible, as its scope and domain are limited by sensory empiricism. There's nothing _to_ prove, using predetermined impossible-to-meet standards! You can't invent a machine that's going to accurately gauge and determine something as complex and mutable as Karma, (or it's just not happening anytime soon, at least). Even despite this, i've learned the hard way that's it's just futile to have a conversation on metaphysics with a materialist or one who doesn't even recognize the existence of the soul; I know this would exclude a large amount of people in present society, but I believe it's a circular discussion using conflicting definitions on essential terms ("self," "God." " world" etc), that goes nowhere. This doesn't apply to just Tuomas, but everyone now -> I would just wish that you'd choose to agree that we disagree, but cease to make disparaging comments on my beliefs ("everyoneknowsitsshit," etc); I understand your way of thinking (I had to study it, to pass school!) and respect it, but I don't think you're doing likewise, or perhaps even capable of it, from where you're standing. I'm not asking for understanding at this point, but perhaps some sort of tolerance would be enough. I had an astronomy professor once who would loudly laugh in class about how "astrology is a religion, not a science," and I was perfectly fine with such a distinction (despite a little irritated at how the subtext = a religion is inherently inferior to a science these days, and not worthy of the same amount of study).

I consider your methodology flawed in function and while effective in pieces, useless on a grander scale, as it chooses to ignore or dismiss what it can't decipher in its practice, while simultaneously making pretentions of being able to explain "everything." Yet you continue to have faith in its efficiency despite the vast amounts of the human experience it's unable to make any sense of; you just have to take it for granted =) (and moreover, brush aside milliennia's worth of human history regarding similar mystical/religious experiences around the world to maintain this "faith" you have in its superiority). It's your tool, the binoculars through which you view the world, and that's fine. Just don't assume that everyone does indeed view it that way (I wouldn't discount any spirits doing anything as I have a good friend who's been quite troubled by them regularly!). It's almost like you're all locked in a box and viewing the world from a hole inside of it, whereas the ones who are freed from that line of thinking (after possibly realiizing that the construction of the world as dependent upon the five senses is Not Absolute) have a much wider perspective. Yet not one that's going to be found through empiricism.

What I also dislike about your methodology is its discounting of the Subjective to the supremacy of this idealized Objective that doesn't really exist - an entire topic that reminds me of the um, subject of documentary cinema (as one of its most famous meta-questions over the decades since its birth has been: is there an Objective reality and/or voice in the first place?). You want to streamline the human experience into these compartmentalized spaces that give little room for any deviation, for otherwise the entire system you've erected over the past three-to-five centuries would be so threatened, its numerous conclusions would either fall apart instanteously, or come into contradiction with one another; isn't such rigid adherence to certain contested principles indicative of a form of fundamentalism ? In response to the illogical "religious" world that persecuted many for over a thousand years (the Church, Inquisition et al), western civ went in such an opposite, materialistic direction to abandon even considering the existence of anything spirituaistic, the pendulum swinging so far in the opposite direction post Darwin that it kind of fell off the fulcrum, with no intenton of swinging back. It's more than a little unbalanced now, and instead of the flames at the stake, you're utilizing the psychiatric ward in the service of maintaning the hegemony of this imaginary Objective (and Objective "reality"). What's the difference? Ah, a bit of compassion post "humanism," but the effect is the same: marginalize those that differ in their engagment with the Subjective, in defernce to an imaginary Objective, this ambiguous Truth, that remains defined in the hands of those who have power (if you think that I'm saying that today's "scientists" = the Church of yesteryear, yes I'm making that admittedly obtuse analogy, as i know most would equate today's politicos with the clergy of old in the West, but to them i'd say that there are differing realms of power in our present society, to which I'd hope they'd agree.)

What about those that come a position where Truth itself is encountered as being something that's not linear, or in contradiction with itself ? What about the "reality" of someone who functions in a totally "normal" manner throughout the day, but hears the voice of a recently deceased loved one at night, is that person's subjective reality not real to him or her ? You'd call it simply the overwork of a grieving imagination; I'd consider that a possibility, but based on what I've seen, I'd also consider the (slight) possibility of a tear in her auric shield, thus making an astral channeling possible; her daytime existence wherein she's "fine," would contradict with the reality she experiences at night. And you'd laugh at ridicule at that, while getting either the SSRIs or straitjacket ready, but that's okay - thats how different our world views are. Maybe I've experienced things quite different than you, and if tolerance for "new age hippie bullshit" views / alternative methods, et al are too much to strive for, I'd like to hope that you're one day able to see that your responses to the matter are as much a case of what you inherently believe in as mine are, based on differing world-views, rather than arrogantly assuming that they're somewhat closer to this Objective Truth. I know that's a lot to ask for me, for at least another century or two, based on the state of how things are today. So it's time to indent again...

Getting back to astrology ((which this post didn't really get back into.....'coz haven't I been here before? HERE aha (search function!) is my terrifying, even more incoherent thread/post from last year which gets more into technicalities and exposes my "condition" fully - is ILX run by Aquarians? --> I really you don't revive it though, or only if in some case you do with the consequence of it getting deleted. maybe jon williams can post to it?)) I again have to state that it's more than a little unfair when people use rubbish newspaper blurbs as evidence that it's "rubbish," without fairly studying the subject in any depth before discrediting it - and will end with a quote from the venerable Chakrapani Ullal ->
 It is a popular misconception that astrology would suggest that the planets ?cause? events to happen. One could compare this relationship of the influence of the planets on mankind to that of a thermometer and body temperature. The thermometer only indicates, but does not itself bring about the fever, just as the planets indicate, but do not cause events to happen. Rather, they indicate the challenges one has to face during life?s pilgrimage due to causes generated by the individuals past actions.

I wish people would at least distinguish between SUN SIGN WESTERN ASTROLOGY which is built around the premise of "fun!" (it uses that, and the promise of good sex, to sell all its books - it has no serious pretentions, people!) and well, other systems in practice that DON'TT FOCUS ON PERSONALITY ANALYSIS and yes, believe it or not long preceded Linda Goodman. Is it too much to ask ?

PS Kenan - I thought last we you were admitting to your asshole -paranoid-emotionally-needy-Scorpio status, when you mentioned how you can't see any potential relationship through a "casual" lens, but only as a possible LTR or one-night-stand? This is all a rhetorical question, btw.

No, it doesn't. It's a bit hypocritical of you to say all these misinformed, misconstrued things about science while chastising others for doing the same about astrology.

I don' t know who is the "you", this Stereotypical Dogmatic Man of Science bugaboo that you are addressing. The condescension in your post ("you're just seeing one part of the world...open your eyes man!") is insulting and not likely to gain you any sympathizers.

That actually, seriously, makes no sense at all. Is he saying that the planets align themselves according to the choices humans make?

I'm definitely at fault for not making this distinction, but a bit upthread when I said I believe that most people don't buy it and are simply amused by how their sign's personality description lines up with their own perceived personality, I was most definitely referring to Sun Sign Western Astrology.

xpost EXACTLY and there are SO MANY MEMBERS of the 'scientific community' that do nothing but establish something as 'immutable fact'

No - because it isn't inexplicable. Astrology holds tight within its own boundaries - as do most belief systems. It isn't that science is an opposing belief system - I actually agree with your assertion that its a method of investigation, rather than a world-view. However, many people have become so attached to the method that they won't accept there may be alternative methods. Basically, in this case, you're choosing to attempt to assess something that operates outside the scope of science with tools that are basically scientific. Its like sticking your head in the ground to see if the sky exists or not. Or, conversely like attempting to use astrology to see if science is real or not. You can't do experiments on faith.

I wouldn't ask you to believe in it, but is it too much to ask that you don't simply dismiss it out of hand? By your own admission, you don't know if it works or not. We'll never know, completely - so, a bit of tolerance for the 'irrational' amongst us, please.

If you do believe in this, then I guess I have nothing more to say. It's like debating whether elves or gnomes or spirits or gods exist - pointless for the both

Well, perhaps it is pointless, but the alternative viewpoint needs to be put. That said, I respect your view, even though I don't agree with it.

ooops, I don't need your "sympathy," =) but claiming that modern science admits that some things fall out of it's domain contradicts what many of us are taught in school's as it's ultimate aims ("to explain the world, phenomena" etc), and is a cop-out nonetheless: if a system of gathering wisdom/knowledge should apply to one part of the world, why not all of it -and the Method should, in essence, be able to explain religion and all its unexplained mysteries if it has any true value, ultimately. The schizophrenic way of splitting the world into science / religion is also a recent western invention, post-"Enlightenment," as i touched upon in that Aquarian thread; more reaction of the "thinkers," following centuries of Church tyranny. More Mr Ullal ->
 Jyotish is a highly composite or “holistic” knowledge relating to the complete existence of this universe, integrating every branch of knowledge – all the parts viewed in context to the whole – the sciences reflecting the arts, medicine being consistent with religion and so forth.  Such a philosophical orientation to life opposes the currently popular materialistic scientific view, which compartmentalizes life, in an ever-shifting focus or preoccupation with one segment or another.

*That* doesn't make sense. Either a) the relative angles of the planets affect events and the "challenges one has to face during life's pilgrimage", or b) they both reflect a common, underlying cause: the positions of the planets is the easiest way for us to spot the state of whatever underlying force field is affecting earthly events. I assumed that Vic meant (b).

(Of course, there already *is* a force field that determines the positions of the planets. It's called gravity, and it's far too weak for events and personalities to vary according to the planets' positions. If it was, the architecture of the building you were born in would have a greater effect on your personality than your natal chart. But I'm not saying that that disproves astrology; just that it proves that if (b) *is* correct than existing gravitational theories are extremely incomplete if not wrong altogether.)

(Incidentally, Kepler was also an astrologer as well as an astronomer.)

the positions of the planets is the easiest way for us to spot the state of whatever underlying force field is affecting earthly events.

This is OTM.

The thing that most scientists object to about astrology and other attempts to explain the unexplainable is that the followers of such belief-systems are ABSOLUTELY sure that they are correct, even without substantive proof, which is the biggest no-no in science. It's not that anyone is afraid of having their world-view collapsed, it's not that they're innately prejudiced, it's just that there is NO acceptable evidence to these belief systems.

Based on what, though? If there's no relationship, there's no relationship, and therefore no bloody map.

celestial rays are in mathematical harmony

I'll agree to disagree, I guess, but that statement... gah. It's deliberate nonsense. It'complete gibberish. If anyone can explain to me what a celestial ray is, I'll give yo a dollar.

Kepler was an intriguing astrologer who, er, heard the music of the spheres and worked a lot on developing harmonics in the western systems, which are still used in the East, particularly the 9th Harmonic chart.

Caitlin, - there's no other "cause" that's affecting earthly events in a metaphysical way aside from Karma (the strongest of force fields, but this would lead into a free will vs. determinism debate) which forces the birth to take place at the appropriate moment; physical gravity is not in conflict with this.

Perhaps the best method is yet to be invented, and will fuse the two types of investigation. However, for the moment, each has a unique perspective that the other could benefit from incorporating.

x-post:
I'd argue, actually, that some religions HAVE evolved through testing what is 'true' and what isn't. Most new religions have this at their core. That's what that Jewish guy on the cross was doing here 2000 years ago, and before him an indian prince sitting under a tree - the evolution may appear to be slower than science, but that is at a macro, rather than a micro level. On the smaller scale, Those who choose to follow a religious path are capable of examining what makes sense to them, and incorporating into their beliefs - just as those who follow a scientific or political path are capable of doing - and of course these beliefs are subject to dispute. Not all of those who are spiritual are fundamentalists. In fact, some would say fundamentalism is diametrically opposed to spirituality.

On the subject of astrology - I have read about studies that have suggested that there is a link between the movements of the moon and mental stability - sadly I can't remember which ones to quote them here. I would also ask those who suggest there is no planetary influence to consider the connection between the moon's 28 day cycle and the menstrual cycle. Of course, I can't 'prove' the connection - any more than you can prove there isn't one.

*grin*
You HAVE heard of feng shui, haven't you??

My main question is why? Why believe in it? Why invent all these terms to explain the unexplainable? Why not accept that some things are (presently, and possible forever) unknowable?

Science isn't arbitrary. "Unacceptable" evidence is not an arbitrary term.

(my brane turns off when i hear the word 'chakra')

bloody hell, that's a big question.

Aren't science and religion both doing this in their own way? Our species seems to have a yearning to investigate, to examine the world around us and to try and make sense of it.

Accepting that some things are unknowable isn't necessarily against the principles of religion.

Either I'm not getting something blindingly obvious, or your reasoning makes no sense.

If there's nothing that can effect earthly events, then you're admitting that astrology doesn't exist. If karma can effect earthly events, then it must have some sort of effect on the physical world, and this effect should be detectable somehow.

If someone's karma is indicated by their natal chart, then either it is caused *by* the planetary positions and angles, or *has the same cause as* the planetary positions and angles. These, however, can be entirely explained by gravitational theory. Therefore, gravitational theory must be wrong: there must be some unknown force that can a) cause the planetary movements which we currently explain as "gravity" b) satisfy all the other results which fit gravitational theory c) also affect our karma.

(To Mr Paving: Yes, I have. But if gravity was the cause, the local gravitational variations caused by all the various masses surrounding you would completely outweigh those from elsewhere in the solar system.)

And even that is a big fat myth.

caitlin, you're missing his larger point, which is that it doesn't HAVE to make sense. Same reason I'm wearing tin foil on my head and soaking my feet in brine.

Well, yes. It's just that the religious way is usually easily proved wrong :-P

Accepting that some things are unknowable isn't necessarily against the principles of religion.

It's often an important part *of* various religions. In fact, although I'm not a student of comparative religion, I'd say that it's one of the main points that different religions have in common.

the planetary positions reflect karma metaphysically, but gravity is the physical force that is causing those movements in the physical world. i fail to see the conflict.

ooops, yes - a caesarian would be predetermined (and would actually be denoted in the natal chart, with a malefic influencing the first house of childbirth). and to "why" - eh, i don't assume to speak for others, but as for me, well...is being born into a culture that's praticed astrology uninterruptedly for the past six thousand years good enough? long before westerners attempted to come and split up the world into "what's knowable" and "what's not," 1300 years after the Apostle Thomas came to "save" us darkies (aren't ya fickle?!) when we've had our own systems of holistic knowledge that doesn't divide the world into such binaries -"vidya."

Are you against astrology, then, because there's no way this could EVER be proved? There isn't, really, is there? I agree with what you're saying that it isn't outright proof, as far as the scientific method is concerned - that's where faith has to come in.

I suppose, then, it depends how you apply your faith - you can either say that this system is absolutely right and that you won't countenance that there may be alternatives (fundamentalism) or you can incorporate something that 'feels right' or 'makes sense' (the terms are vague, but necessarily so - this isn't the most easily definable area) into your existing view - which is what I did, not so long ago, with astrology - in which I haven't always believed.

Again, this comes back to what I was saying about science being unable to assess faith - that doesn't mean that those objects of faith don't exist just because we can't measure them yet. I can't technically prove that any of the things I see on television news are real, but that doesn't mean I don't believe they are there. I know the comparison is crass but I can't think of a better one right now.

This one finding, however, would do little towards proving that astrology contained any validity. Sure, objects of nature (the moon) can have effects on other objects of nature (humans). That's called cause-and-effect

And if they can affect a body - or something as huge as a sea - why not a mind?

I accept the distinction you make, however, and that a correlation is not, in itself, proof.

Those damn people with their "science" and their "reason" and their "increased food supplies" and their "extended lifespans." They've really done more harm than good. This whole "knowing" thing is leading us down a blind alley!

And even that is a big fat myth.

You don't think objects of nature can have effect on other objects of nature? But surely science HAS proved that one, quite some time ago?

No. There's no logical reason why something which is old should be more valid than something which was invented yesterday.
You seem to have a vendetta against modern Western thought, to which I just shrug.

It's often an important part *of* various religions. In fact, although I'm not a student of comparative religion, I'd say that it's one of the main points that different religions have in common.

Caitlin, I'd say you had just had a bad experience of religion. This is what comes of being brought up in Lincolnshire (I offer this conclusion based on utterly unscientific evidence :))

http://skepdic.com/fullmoon.html

Frankly, I'd suggest that you're trying to use Newton's Third Law as a bad metaphor. It applies to moving masses, and that's that. But, if you want to go with it, using it as a metaphor doesn't give you problems with initial origins - you just need to create opposite things at once, so that everything sums to zero. The analogy is with an exploding bomb: it starts of with nothing moving, then suddenly there is an awful lot of motion - but if you sum the momentums of all the exploding fragments, it will total to zero.

(and, look at the quantum virtual particles that Hawking theorized could cause the evaporation of black holes)

(xpost, natch)

Caitlin - I can't comment on Vic's beliefs, as I don't know enough about them, but ONE answer to your question (and I'm sure there are lots of others..) lies in the idea of the harmony of the spheres - the idea that what happens on a micro level on this planet is echoed at a marco level (err...I'm using those words rather a lot, aren't I? replace them with 'personal' and 'cosmic' if you feel so-inclined, but I'm guessing you'll run a mile from the word 'cosmic') in the galaxies, and in a huge number of different permutations, too (too numerous, and beyond the scope of my knowledge, to attempt to go into).
The idea being - YES, gravity exists - yes, there is an unknown force. The one does not cancel the other out. We know gravity exists, and don't dispute that, but we suggest a sibtler, more unknowable (and I use that phrase deliberately..) force behind the movements of the planets.

Not the most unbiased of sources, that one.

Physicists have to deal with the fact that lots of things *are* unknowable, and that there isn't a clear divide between what you can know and what you can't.

So, there's a leap of faith there too? There are some things you can't prove, but just have to believe in? You're getting dangerously close to religion there..

Frankly, I'd suggest that you're trying to use Newton's Third Law as a bad metaphor. It applies to moving masses, and that's that. But, if you want to go with it, using it as a metaphor doesn't give you problems with initial origins - you just need to create opposite things at once, so that everything sums to zero. The analogy is with an exploding bomb: it starts of with nothing moving, then suddenly there is an awful lot of motion - but if you sum the momentums of all the exploding fragments, it will total to zero.

Good god, no. I wouldn't know Newton's Third Law if it sat on my lap and nibbled my ear! However, I think I understand it as you've displayed it - one factor is moved in one direction, another must balance it out. The equal and opposite reaction thing, yes? The problem being, again, that any metaphysical reaction would be unmeasurable, and difficult to assess - which is why applying scientific method doesn't work for astrology. Which is why we have to make the same leap of faith that you have to make when you accept that some things are unknowable.

I know very little about The Ether - tell me more.

Nice to know someone is skeptical of *something*.

No, there's nothing you have to believe in, other than cause-and-effect. Like I said, it's descriptive. It's like saying there's a leap of faith made by "believing" that when you drop a glass on concrete, it will break.

"at one time physicists believed that space contained a substance called the "ether". By measuring the speed of light in two directions, physicists demonstrated that the speed was the same, so there couldn't be a drag effect for the "ether". This meant the prediction from the "ether" theory had been disproved, on that occasion. However, beliefs about the ether still lurk in physics, and while there was a paradigm shift, like other paradigm shifts, it was not complete."

"Theoretical physicists cannot disprove the ether theory. They however, understandable, reject the possibility of ether because it differs too much with the present scientific perception; their opinion is pre-determined."

Is it sceptical to point out that your source is not unbiased? Possibly. If so, then you got me bang to rights, guv.

Actually, though, I think you initially quoted me rather out of context when you suggested that link- in the post you quoted, I was not claiming that science had proved that the movements of the moon affected the minds of people - nothing quite so grandiose or specific. I was saying that science had proved that the movements of one object could affect another - on the basis that your previous post had appeared to suggest that this was not the case. If I'd realised you were talking specifically about the moon, and its effect on mental states, rather than about the broader scientific point, I would not have claimed that there was scientific proof.

Of course, then I did go on to ask that the fact that the moon COULD affect more than just the physical was not dismissed out of hand. At no point did I claim that there was scientific proof for this. In fact, I've been arguing all along that there's no way science could ever prove such a thing.

The flaw in the logic here is "Therefore, gravitational theory must be wrong."

It's entirely possible, even in science, for two different descriptions or methods to accurately explain the same phenomenon. e.g. Observe light as both a wave and particles.

Oh, sure. The moon effects people. When the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie, that's amore!

I know we're never going to agree - its been interesting reading your points of view, though. If yoo get the time, drop us a mail and explain to me what I'm wrong about :)

I was confused by this at first. You're thinking that being skeptical is a *bad* thing? It's not the same as being cynical, you know.

But the movements of the planets can be explained completely by physical theories. If you want to say that the movement of the planets is caused by some unknowable metaphysical force, that's fine, but you have to replace gravity (and relativity - the movement of Mercury can only be predicted by Einsteinian theories rather than Newtonian ones) if you want to do it.

So, there's a leap of faith there too? There are some things you can't prove, but just have to believe in?

No; I was thinking about quantum theory, which (in some interpretations at least) states that some things are just unknowable; but you can choose to some extent what you want to know.

On the other hand, Gödel's Theorem *does* seem to show that any complex logical system, such as mathematics, contains statements which are true but unprovable. However, before you take a leap of faith, you're expected to put in a lot of effort trying to disprove them.

The flaw in the logic here is "Therefore, gravitational theory must be wrong."

It's entirely possible, even in science, for two different descriptions or methods to accurately explain the same phenomenon. e.g. Observe light as both a wave and particles.

Yes. However, in that case, the two descriptions were both needed to agree with the available data. Young's double-slit experiment was best explained by describing light as a wave; black-body radiation could only be explained by dividing light into quanta.

Gravitational and relativity theories explain the movement of the planets. They also state that the variation on gravitational forces on our bodies caused by planetary motion is less than that caused by the objects around us. For there to be an alternative gravitational theory that also explains astrology, it has to have the same effect as gravity on astronomical bodies, but an entirely different effect on us.

(xpost)

In meantime, scientists keep inventing, improving, explaining, and changing the way we all live on this planet in fundamental ways, usually for the better (though sure, they occasionally invent, say, nuclear energy). Let the people have their religions. Truth is, they probably won't ever *have* to understand the way a television set works, or that the fact that it does work establishes certain principles of physics that blow their worldview to bits.

It doesn't just say they are unprovable, it says they are completely contradictory statements. Which is to say they are impossible in the context of the system even though they are correctly generated by following the rules of the system itself. And more to the letter, it says you can't have a consistent system that represents every possible theorem and you can't represent every theorem in the same system without introducing inconsistency into the same system.

What's more, Gödel's Theorem applies to logical systems, so what does it have to do with Astrology (or any other non-scientific approach to the way the universe "works")

Gravitational and relativity theories explain the movement of the planets. They also state that the variation on gravitational forces on our bodies caused by planetary motion is less than that caused by the objects around us. For there to be an alternative gravitational theory that also explains astrology, it has to have the same effect as gravity on astronomical bodies, but an entirely different effect on us.

There's no way to proove that this alternate theory isn't possible if the assumption is made that it's not a system that can be modelled with [traditional or existing] logic or math. Which is to say I completely understand your argument, but it's kind of moot given that none of the people defending Astrology have even implied that one can accurately model it with science as it manifests itself normally.

It's like someone is saying "Astrology is a valid alternate way to view the world even though it's not the same as your Objective Science," and then you're retorting with "But it cannot be a valid alternative because it can't be explained by Science."

In how many places? I was under the impression that all genital mutilation took place between the legs.

(it seems to be a disease that affects British politics an awful lot. "We've had a Lord Chancellor since the 9th century - splitting his roles up must be a bad idea!")

(xpost)

Reading back, what annoys me most about the things Vic writes - and the reason why he gets such a strong reaction, I assume - is that he accuses us of not understanding Vedic astrology; but then is just as closed-minded (and, often, wrong) when it comes to scientific theory.

(and frankly, I feel bad about feeling I have to post on subjects liek this because I'm certainly not someone who considers the world to be purely unspiritual in the same way as, say, Richard Dawkins.)

with
http://us.greet1.yimg.com/img.greetings.yahoo.com/g/img/sanrio/scorpio_tn.gif
rising

and
http://us.greet1.yimg.com/img.greetings.yahoo.com/g/img/sanrio/gemini_tn.gif
moon

(ho ho, I'm a Kenneth Anger film)

I was initially upset that this discussion turned into a discussion of science vs. astrology because I would have preferred it to stay more along the lines of "list your [Western] astrological sign here so we can do silly slumber-party giggle type things like point out what a bossy asshole you are because you're a leo." The reason I'd have preferred to keep the spiritual vs. scientific out of it is because those arguments rarely advance anything since everyone comes in totally charged with their own beliefs and many folks don't back down.

I dunno... I don't think that Godel, Escher, Bach describes an accurate theory regarding AI (and neither does the Artificial Intelligence philosophy community at large), but it's still a fun read, thought provoking, and genuinely interesting. I feel kinda the same way about [Western] Astrology, to be honest.

I like Dawkins, and spiritual is where you find it. There is no small amout of awe to be felt and gasping to be done over the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators. It's not like he imagine a cold, dull world.

But then, Leos have a thing for childishness and silliness. Or so I've read.

you certainly are.

Actually, I like Caitlin a lot and that hasn't been changed by the fact that we're on different sides of this argument. It isn't conflicting views that might make me dislike someone, its the smug and condescending tone evident in posts like yours that are more likely to do so.

I share my birthday with Eminem. He's two years younger, tho.

FWIW, whenever I read about Virgo characteristics, they all seem very applicable to me. I accept the argument that often these things are written in a vague way to be applicable to everyone, but if I read other sign traits, they just don't seem to fit.

sagittarians are advised to steer clear of taureans, which i find interesting because throughout my life i've had a series of weirdly antagonistic friendships/rivalries with taureans.

i'm supposed to get along with leos, but we're both hotheaded fire signs and that inevitably ---> trouble.

not saying any of this means anything, but sometimes patterns do emerge.

if a system of gathering wisdom/knowledge should apply to one part of the world, why not all of it -and the Method should, in essence, be able to explain religion and all its unexplained mysteries if it has any true value, ultimately.

Um, would you care to elaborate what these "unexplained mysteries" are, because I haven't heard of them? As for the study of religion, modern science has certainly done it's part on it - starting from Feuerbach and Durkheim and continuing to almost every major sociologist and anthrolopologist of the 20th and 21st century. But the problem is, that unless you count theology (which can hardly be called "objective" in any way), the study of religion mostly falls to the hands of social scientists (because religion is by definition a social phenomenon). And social scientists can rarely, if ever, come up with such accurate descriptions and predictions as the natural sciences (I should know, because I'm a social sciences student myself). Why is that? Because, a) human beings and their interactions form such chaotic systems, that any types of "laws" or "predictions" about societies are extremely hard, if impossible, to come up with. And, b) unlike natural scientists, social scientists are a part of the system they study, so they can never reach the same amount of objectivity. This doesn't, however, mean that there aren't many good and illuminating descriptions and theories of religious activities. I've found out that sociological and anthropological (and psychological) theories can bring a lot of light to the phenomenon we call religion, and to me they can in a sufficient way explain the "unexplained mysteries" of religion Vic was talking about.

As far as I can see *you* never suggested that your way of interpreting existence was the only conceivable viewpoint and that all others were, at best, deluded and at worst 'crackpots' (actually, I'll take the 'hippies' part as a compliment).

Its one thing to suggest that you don't agree with a system of interpretation - as you did. Its quite another to say that because that system doesn't fall within your mindset that everyone who follows it is some sort of weak-minded, deluded fundamentalist. THAT is where it becomes offensive.

As far as I'm concerned, it is completely possible to follow science and have an open mind about religion. Just as far as its completely possible to be religious, and a scientist. The fact that we can explain HOW things work - that we can look into things, and derive a sense of accomplishment from determining the forces behind their interactions doesn't necessarily mean that there's nothing that might fall outside our skills, that might not be measurable using our system. To me, learning more about how things work simply increases my awe that they have come together as they have.

Essentially, certain others (well, one other person, actually..) on this thread appears to be guilty of Science As Religion, and fundamentalism - i.e. a refusal to accept that ANYONE else might have access to another sort of truth.

Caitlin, you made such a grevious error in your understanding of my (perhaps unclearly articulated) points, I don't know where to start...but I hope to end things with this post, since there's really no point in continuing when there's no common language (accepted defintions of terms) we can even communicate in.

If you want to say that the movement of the planets is caused by some unknowable metaphysical force, that's fine, but you have to replace gravity

What a ludicrous dichotomy you're setting up; it's almost like you're saying that I bounced over to this thread and like an exuberant crazy old lady waved my arms in the air, proclaiming Oh children, Gravity is irrelevant now, it's KARMA that's causing the planets to move!! When did I ever dispute the objectively proven effects of the force of gravity ?

Let's see what I actually said. the planetary positions reflect karma metaphysically, but gravity is the physical force that is causing those movements in the physical world. i fail to see the conflict.

I'm not - and never was - arguing that the forces and laws you studied in physics class were invalid, inaccurate, or inapplicable in describing the physical world; metaphysics concerns itself with abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience (defintion 2B according to Merriam-Webster). Different domains, but you've been unsuccessfully trying to set up an either/or dichotomy in all of your posts on this thread (stretching back to Either a) the relative angles of the planets affect events and the "challenges one has to face during life's pilgrimage", or b) they both reflect a common, underlying cause...), and let's see who first brought up Gravity? Was I even ever disputing it ?

Why no, it was you, right in that same post: Of course, there already *is* a force field that determines the positions of the planets. It's called gravity. That's wonderful (and nice to learn for the first time), but I believe I've made clear enough times in this thread that my beliefs regarding karmic congruence with birth time have no conflict with the already accepted and proven laws of gravity that cause the planets to remain in their orbits on the physical plane. You kept trying to set up this irrelevant dichotomy, however, either by stuffing concepts in my mouth (hands?) or applying it to quotes I posted here, which you apparently misunderstood in your attempt to discredit my beliefs (which all of you are showing a flagrant disrespect for in the first place, in your attempts to "disprove" them). Okay, you want to keep bringing up physical concepts perhaps to inexplicably dispute metaphysical ones, but when I, or the beliefs that I am discussing, have no disagreement with the given physical concepts in the first place, what exactly are you going to "prove" ? The astrological planetary effects are not coming from "millions of miles away" which would complicate the matter of gravity, but from the astral plane which exists outside of (and yet encompasses) the physical one, and you're going to laugh at that now, but I hope you realize that the physical planets may be subject to the gathering of empirical data, but their metaphysical representations remain impervious to such measurement. Call it a cop-out, but if nothing else, I don't understand why it's so hard for anyone to recognize the symbolic benefits of using astrology as nothing more than a semiological tool, even in such shakily-defined (western) processes as psychological classification, like Jung did (despite how I prefer the vedic emphasis on one's karmic lot and prognostication; chalk it up to eastern civ's collectivist lack of the long-standing tradition in the power of "free will" that the west has enjoyed).

WHY can't we just agree to disagree as coming from two different world-views? Wait, I did mention that above, but you're adamant to prove me "wrong," which is a curious motivation for those who so secrely stand in the trenches of the current Establishment.

To top it all off, when you say this: Reading back, what annoys me most about the things Vic writes - and the reason why he gets such a strong reaction, I assume - is that he accuses us of not understanding Vedic astrology; but then is just as closed-minded (and, often, wrong) when it comes to scientific theory. it's kind of bewildering for a number of reasons, including:
a) I never assumed that anyone else here would understand Vedic astrology, as I was initally just expressing my (admittedly deep) frustration at the predictable dismissals Tuomas' post first evoked and attempting to explain a differing position (which was overshadowed by my dramatic exasperation), and for that matter,
b) From the onset, I evinced a sense of resignation with my writing, as i had no other desire than to defend my (yeah, say "religious" here) beliefs out of a sense of dignity from being off-handedly attacked by those who haven't even come close to really studying that which they're attempting to eviscerate; I was not trying to persuade or convince anyone as i knew that'd be hopeless, just defend. And this resignation can be demonstrated here, where I stated: i've learned the hard way that's it's just futile to have a conversation on metaphysics with a materialist or one who doesn't even recognize the existence of the soul; I know this would exclude a large amount of people in present society, but I believe it's a circular discussion using conflicting definitions on essential terms ("self," "God." " world" etc), that goes nowhere, and furthremore, also when I signed my name "Agreetodisagree," hoping that the discussion might end (as opposed to "close-mindedly" trying to prolong any dispute). But you all continued...

I apologize if I myself may have annoyed you/r own beliefs in Science...if I want respect I'm certainly willing to give it in return...

But let's face it. None of you were ready to openly discuss anything with the hopes of creating an honest dialogue or exchange in the first place, you had your preset ideas, as did I, and were trying to dismantle mine when confronted with them in a way that revealed the subtext (and occassional text) that anyone with a mindset such as mine has to be intellectually inferior, incapable of rationality to start with. Oops may want to grant my beliefs the description of the word "religion" (with the connotation of mindless faith and illogic), but the irony is that if any such condescending questions like "why?! would anyone believe THAT" were put to any other "religion" 's beliefs (even the demonized Xianity) on ILX, a complaint to the moderators would ensue, and justifiably so. I don't think Oops cares to resolve this specific contradiction, however, I may be wrong.

I hope with this post, we can end this futile conversation, and walk away with if nothing else, a reminder of just how stubborn the other side can be. Caitlin, I respect you as a poster, and should have known that you'd be adamant in your 'reason'able disgust at my postings after i went back and read your response here from last year (The whole point of modern science is that it *isn't* intuitive; it's a recipe book of practical methods for finding out secret information. There are places for intuition in science, but only very rarely, and only if it doesn't conflict with the scientific method itself. If you think intuition should take priority when trying to find something out, try a gnostic belief system such as alchemy or astrology.) to my novella-like post on that thread, remembering how you'd misunderstood my point regarding intuition in that one. So when I saw you start to post on this one, i simply shouldn't have clicked on it again, but regardless, I hope you will just email me in the future if you want to seriously discuss this further in any detail.

As for Oops and Kenan, it's hilarious that they've never responded to a single one of my postings in whole, but find piecemeal things to take and twist out of context, when they do their trashing. Oops, he certainly got a lot of mileage out of this well...is being born into a culture that's praticed astrology uninterruptedly for the past six thousand years good enough?
No. There's no logical reason why something which is old should be more valid than something which was invented yesterday...... I'm still boggling at the notion that because astrology has been practiced for thousands of year, it is valid and should continued to be practiced. No disrespect, but it's logic like this that makes me want to just throw my hands up and surrender. when he forgets that I was just trying to answer his extremely arrogant "WHY?! WHY WOULD ANYONE EVEN BELIEVE IN THAT?" question in the first place that I didn't need to (as it contained the subtext of intolerance that I''d feared from the start) - but as far as the whole "just 'cause it's old so continuing to accept it = illogical," you can already read my old post on that Aquarian thread where I discussed my problems with accepting a linear_and_progressive view of human history (I prefer cyclical), as I don't care to ruminate on it again. [Link: is ILX run by Aquarians? ] No, I'm not saying that just because something has been adhered to for a long time, it's correct, but I could easily twist the question around to you: why should relatively _new_ findings in one civilization trump a system of knowledge in another, when the fields and parameters of defining "knowledge" and "the known" are so different from one to the other? There are more than enough unsubtle shades of imperalistic thinking here ("losing civ abdicates and abandons its beliefs to the victors," oh, and Max Muller to thread plz ), but i'm not going down that road right now; you can check the older thread. I must add, for the sake of propriety, that saying any of this I mean no disrespect to the considerable contributions of modern Indian scientists such as Bose and Raman who probably would disagree with many a word I've posted. =)

As far as cop-outs or contradictions go though, this is a pretty large one in itself: I think a hallmark of modern science that it admits that some things CAN'T be explained &
currently not explainable by scientific means != outside the realm of science. nothing is. You can't have it both ways: if _nothing_ is outside the realm of science, theoretically speaking, then there cannot be any of these mysterious "some things" that just CAN'T be explained. If Science is flawless, then it should be able to explicate the complete nature of Light, Time, Death and Consciousness, but there's still so much debate over all of this (and the parameters), and you're going to cling so hard to the "wait until the future!" strain of _faith_ , er, thought that there's nothing more to say. I don't have a battle with science's contributions in the physical world, and wouldn't mind defining its domain as you did in that first quote Oops, that would be fine with me. If you have anything else to add, I hope you'd email me too (especially as I can't email you, despite how i'm not a nice lady).

Kenan says he agrees to diagree, but in paragraphs like these:I'll agree to disagree, I guess, but that statement... gah. It's deliberate nonsense. It'complete gibberish; so it's no wonder why i decided to disregard his posts here in toto, even before he turned totally obnoxious here: Those damn people with their "science" and their "reason" and their "increased food supplies" and their "extended lifespans." They've really done more harm than good. This whole "knowing" thing is leading us down a blind alley! Praise Jesus, he's basically regurgitating Evangelical talking points, but for the sake of Science! When he's been so disrespectful I have no intention of paying him any further mind; People need to believe in something, even if you can prove to them beyond all reasonable doubt that it's complete hooey. Your science is only going to threaten their worldview and make them dislike you.. And no asshole, you haven't proven anything beyond a reasonable doubt to me (and your very desire to evokes repulsion), and as far as disliking you goes, I've had all kinds of contradictory feelings since that " do women secretly want to be dominated thread?" But I'll let you keep thinking that it's because my worldview is threatened; if you had it your way, it would no longer exist.

On a final note, you seem to have a vendetta against modern Western thought - perhaps, and if so, it's for both a very good, and an extremely personal reason. But to get all Socratic, how about ending with a question: is modern Western thought indisputably greater than the legacy of antiquated Western thought in the first place, if you can include spirituality in your answer? I hope you don't simply include the past few centuries in which the intellectual elite "progressively" decided to strip away the rich tradition of the metaphysical in Western civ, which has contributed so much to the world, from Pythagoras himself all the way to St. Francis of Assissi.

The moon effects tide & consequently the Earth's weather cycles. Weather cycles effect the lives of humans.

This is one of those discussions I'd be far more willing to participate in if people involved on all sides weren't so knee-jerkishly condescending.

Vic, if you're still reading, I'm sorry that I have to reply to small bits of your posts, and I'm sorry if you think that I'm quoting you out of context. However, we can't really reply to your posts point-by-point; if we did this thread would be megabytes already. I don't like the way, though, that you seem to imply you think I'm a complete materialist who doesn't believe in the soul. Even though you're probably not reading any more, I'm going to annoy you by picking out one or two sentences that I'd like to respond to :-)

If Science is flawless, then it should be able to explicate the complete nature of Light, Time, Death and Consciousness, but there's still so much debate over all of this (and the parameters), and you're going to cling so hard to the "wait until the future!" strain of _faith_ , er, thought that there's nothing more to say.

Go back to what I said ages ago about the nature of science. It's *not* a belief system that can give you instant answers. It's a method for finding things out. Science itself isn't flawless, but the corpus of knowledge discovered by science contains many fewer internal contradictions and flaws than just about all religious belief systems. primarily because if someone finds a flaw then that's probably a good sign that ideas are wrong and need to be changed.

I hope you realize that the physical planets may be subject to the gathering of empirical data, but their metaphysical representations remain impervious to such measurement.

What's a measurement, though? If the metaphysical planets can't be measured, how can they have any effect on the physical world at all? You might say "but they don't *have* to have an effect on the physical world" - but there has to be a connection *somewhere* between the physical and the metaphysical.

My standpoint is this: Some things are not true, and can be disproved. Some things are true, and cannot be disproved. Some things may not come under either of these categories - but if you believe that something is true but not provable, you have to accept that this is a *belief*, and might be wrong. Indeed, you have to accept that your own conception of something unprovable is almost certainly wrong, on pure grounds of chance.

I would go into why I believe all this in depth, but nobody probably wants to read it. I have a wonderful proof of it all, but this margin is too small to contain it.

WHY can't we just agree to disagree as coming from two different world-views? Wait, I did mention that above, but you're adamant to prove me "wrong," which is a curious motivation for those who so secrely stand in the trenches of the current Establishment.

I'm a fundamentalist agnostic. I'll agree to disagree when you agree that there's a high probability of you being wrong.

The only famous people who share my birthday are Charles Lindbergh and Natalie Imbruglia. I'm off now to fly across the Atlantic whilst recording some MOR pop hits.

(has anyone done any research as to whether people born at the same place and the same time, but to different families, have remarkably similar psychological profiles? No? Surely, if someone did, it would help sort out whether the whole natal chart thing is bollocks or not.)

There is quite a bit more to astrology than the natal chart. Perhaps someone else who cares more about convincing others will say some more. Personally, I'm not going any further with this discussion in this forum. I'll gladly debate this in private e-mail with anyone who cares enough to do so, as long as there's some respect on both sides. I don't see any good coming out of going into it further here.

Caitlin, you know I HEART you, but I did think your comment about agreeing to disagree when vic admits there's a high probability of her being wrong was a trifle disingenuous.
Personally, I'll admit there's a possibility I'm wrong, of course there is - there always is. Will you do the same?

Oops - just read your statement. If you aren't willing to argue with someone who can have faith in a religion, then you aren't willing to argue with me, and it will serve no more purpose to do so.

Caitlin - I think we can agree to disagree without either of us actually having to back down on our arguments - that way, we can both go away, assured of our own correctness.

That was a joke, btw. I think perhaps you were joking too, though.

That's all from me.

I reserve the right to totally go back on that last statement, for no good reason. Otherwise, what's the good of being irrational? :P

Not true. I'd say the same about any religion or any rigid belief system.

I shouldn't have asked "why?" though, you're right. Cause as a student of the science of psychology, I already have a good idea of what the answer is ;)

http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement/02/alda.html

But right now, instead of reason, a lot of people are making use of wishes, dreams, mantras, and incantations. They're trying to heal themselves using crystals, magnets, and herbs with unknown properties. People will offer you a pill made from the leaf of an obscure plant and say, "Take it, it can't hurt you, it's natural." But so is deadly nightshade.

Interestingly, they expect the plant to have active properties to cure them, but they're certain it has no active properties that can harm them. How do they know that?

I mention this, not to denigrate anyone's beliefs — I feel strongly that we're all entitled to our beliefs, just as we're entitled to our feelings — but I bring it up to point out that we're in a culture that increasingly holds that science is just another belief. And I guess it's easier to believe something — anything — than not to know. We don't like uncertainty, so we gravitate back to the last comfortable solution we had, no matter how cockeyed it is.

But Feynman was comfortable with not knowing. He enjoyed it. He would proceed for a while with an idea as if he believed it was the answer. But that was only a temporary belief in order to allow himself to follow it wherever it led. Then, a little while later, he would vigorously attack the idea to see if it could stand up to every test he could think of. If it couldn't stand up, then he simply decided he just didn't know. "Not knowing," he said, "is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong."

Not sure, but Dave Gorman did a show a couple of years ago where he and his twin brother followed/didn't follow a set of newspaper horoscopes for a period of time to see what effects were had on their lives. It was shit, but there is some stuff here about it if you want.

Hi.

It looks like shit, but I'm still pissed that I have to buy it to see it. Can you give us maybe a summary?

Does karma and other such things affect animals? Plants too? or only sentient beings? If plants, what would be considered their "birth"? What about animals that hatch? Is the important moment when the egg is laid or when it is hatched?

And I loved all his other shows.