Astronomy & Astrology (Page 3)

Geoff
Geoff: My prediction of this research would be that humans can interpret almost any event in their life to fit a supposed prediction. Or they can interpret any aspect of their personality to fit a 'zodiacal profile'. Because people are, by and large, highly subjective beings.
11 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

Only early Hot Tuna, and only marginally.

11 years ago Report
0
brassinpockets
brassinpockets: still remains to be true. you can't prove a negative
11 years ago Report
0
brassinpockets
brassinpockets: yeah.I love " watch the north wind rise" though
11 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

So ... because we can't prove that there isn't a subterranean world of fire-breathing unicorns living inside of Uranus ... that means it is true?

11 years ago Report
0
brassinpockets
brassinpockets: but we found the higgs, man
11 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

Brass, a simple question:

Do you really believe that the concept of Astrology has any merit?

11 years ago Report
0
brassinpockets
brassinpockets: no. iut means the most intelligent thing you can say is " I don'y know". and stop dissing on my unicorn. besides there is Everts many worlds potulation.... food for fodder
11 years ago Report
0
brassinpockets
brassinpockets: man my typing sucks!
11 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

Sidestepper.



11 years ago Report
0
brassinpockets
brassinpockets: take 2:
no. just means the most intelligent thing you can say is " I don't know"
.And stop dissing on my unicorn.
besides there is Evert's many worlds postulation.... food for fodder
11 years ago Report
0
brassinpockets
brassinpockets: nope...... my brain tends to go in more than one direction.Dude.I art a Dudette
11 years ago Report
0
brassinpockets
brassinpockets: ok. "attrition", i can handle that. but the point remains you can't prove sonmething is 'NOT' you can only prove that it is ........ atoms are alos unseen man, and your way of thinking would have use never believing a subatomic particle existed..... scary, huh?
11 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: But we CAN see subatomic particles... or more accurately, we can detect them.

And I think the notion of "can't prove something is NOT" is a highly flawed concept. I could quite easily prove for instance that bowling balls are NOT filled with caramel-corn... by simply breaking one open and taking a look. Astrology can be easily proven not to be a valid science through the method of double-blind study as Lipton has suggested.

A similar test was used to debunk the "science" of iridology - the practice of diagnosing illness by studying the imperfections in the iris of the patient's eyes. They took a bunch of people who had one of 4 different medical conditions, and a fifth of them were healthy. They told an iridologist to diagnose each patient for one of these four conditions, and spot the healthy ones. The test results showed that the iridologist was correct roughly 20% of the time.... exactly how accurate someone would be if they had been merely guessing. Thereby proving that iridology is NOT a valid science.

I saw a classroom demonstration on how gullible the human mind is to suggestion... the prof asked each student what their birthdate was, and handed them a description of themselves based on their astrological sign. After they read them, he asked the students to raise their hand if they felt that their astrological description had an accurate bearing on their individual nature. 80% of the class raised their hand, and were quite shocked at how accurate their description really was. The prof then asked them to hand the sheets to the person seated behind them. The students were further surprised to realize that they all had been reading the exact same description.

Astrology suggests that you can group the entire human race into 12 types of people... this is utter nonsense... the human condition is far more complicated than that.

There are no psychics, you can't see the future in tea leaves, you can't divine the location of underground water with a stick......... and astrology is a load of nonsense.
11 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: My personal favourite story about debunking nonesense is the one about "Therapeutic touch"

Basically, it's waving your hands around a sick individual, and claiming you're repairing their "aura" or removing the illness from their "aura". This kind of cure has been supported by the national league of nurses, and the American Nurses Association.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_touch

A 9 year old named Emily Rosa conducted a test on Therapeutic Touch, and with that became the youngest person to ever had a research paper accepted by the Journal of the American Medical Association.

What she did was as simple as it was brilliant- she set up a cardboard screen, and had these "professionals", all of which asserted they could "sense" her without touching her, attempt to tell if her hand was actually just a few inches from their hands.

The results? The ability to sense her was no greater than tossing a coin and guessing....

I love how a 9 year old debunked them all lmao...
11 years ago Report
0
brassinpockets
brassinpockets: niiiiiice Corvin. now prove ALL bowling balls are NOT filled with carmel corn. sorry guy. tghe empirical method is set up thusly. YOU CANNOT prove a negative. sould you like to aregue. I think you need to contact a wide septrum of scientific fascilities. maybe start with Fermi Labs, NASA. work from there. As you move forward. please contact Dr Hawking at Cambridge universitiy, and argue with the learned ; since yOU don't approve of how scientits conduct reseach
< insert smilely fac e here> The most intelligent thing anyone can say is "I don't know" I have a feeling you would have a problem entertaining the idea

Be Well
11 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: What's this about not being able to prove a negative?

That Elvis did not assassinate Caesar has been proven to my satisfaction anyway.
11 years ago Report
0
brassinpockets
brassinpockets: .LOL. unless there is a reason to reopen the investigation, that IS an accepted truth, but dude. there was only one elvis, and I believe the Caesar you refer to was Julius, and not the others.

THEN there is the 'other worlds theory', but that is merely a theory. Maybe in some other deminsion Elvis did. But your idea doesn't apply where the data is infinate or multipe like a hugh number of bowling balls. I mean its a good thought. but carry it though to its obvious outcome
11 years ago Report
1
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

Let's use a very simple hypothetical example:

Colin is standing in the west end of a room, and I'm standing in the east end of the room.

brassinpockets, you and Lipton are both standing in the north end of the room, where you can observe both Colin and I in the same field of view that your eyes afford you.

And you both can walk over to me, look over my shoulder at Colin across the room. Then you both can walk over to Colin, and look over his shoulder at me across the room. You both can wander around the room, and scrutinize it very carefully, paying close attention to where Colin is, and where I am.

Lipton then makes this statement:

"Colin and SITS are not not standing in the same end of the room."

Would you invalidate his statement because it's impossible to prove a negative?




11 years ago Report
0
brassinpockets
brassinpockets: hi Dute.I am new to the entire 'wire club thing' so I am not sure how to reply to questions. Do I think astrology has any merit.......... the most intellignet thing anyone can say is "I don't know" But I do find some aspects of it intriquing
11 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

Just answer the fucking question, dude. It's not hard. Any ten year old child could answer it.

11 years ago Report
0
brassinpockets
brassinpockets: Ummm, 60's there is one SIS. and he is imediatly observable. the empirical method is set up to test the unobservable..... SIT. what you are describing is a CARRELATION" and empirical method does not apply. And SiS. stop spying on me and my buddy, Colin.. ......sheesh!
11 years ago Report
0
brassinpockets
brassinpockets: and a correlation too < harumph> : >
11 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

I, and I think everyone else reading this, will see that aviodance of an answer for what it is ... an avoidance of an answer.

11 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Um, dude, if you're referring to the problem of induction, well

1. This is not news (see David Hume c 1750)
2. Why stop at negatives? For a non-finite body of data, you can't prove a positive either (i.e. all copper conducts electricity)
11 years ago Report
0