58 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
58 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Astrology Is NOT A Science!

by mwright
47 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
Nor does it have to be.

I was sitting in a coffee shop with another astrologer when we heard "whooping" sounds.

Then a man walked a little girl by our table, and we noticed that she was making the "whooping" sounds.

I assumed that the girl may have Tourette syndrome, and started to consider what planetary configuration would show up in her astrological chart.

If Tourette can be characterized by "sudden uncontrollable actions", astrologically it would relate to the planet Uranus (things that are sudden), maybe the so-called 12th house (things you can't control), and the planet Mars (actions).

My best guess was that a person with Tourette syndrome may have "Mars conjunct Uranus in the 12th house".

"Good guess!", my friend said, then pulled out a folder of astrological charts that she carries, shuffled through them, and laid one on the table.

"I just met a woman the other day who has Tourette syndrome, and look! She has Mars conjunct Uranus in the 12th house!"

So even though astrology isn't a science, if ya know what you're talkin about, you can make some pretty good guesses.
#astrology #science #tourette syndrome
  • Profile picture of the author MoneyMagnetMagnate
    My horoscope said I'm not supposed to listen to people like this today...:p
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7684918].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mwright
      Originally Posted by MoneyMagnetMagnate View Post

      My horoscope said I'm not supposed to listen to people like this today...:p
      Hahaaaa! It's a good thing you DIDN'T... I know I wouldn't.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7684955].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        you can make some pretty good guesses.
        Or be viewed as a looney tunes.

        "Mars conjunct Uranus in the 12th house".
        Tetracyline will cure that
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7684996].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author myob
        "Astrology is a science in itself, and contains an illuminating body of knowledge. It has taught me many things, and I am greatly in debt to it."*

        - Albert Einstein













        *Attributed to Einstein, from "The Expanded Quotable Einstein", by Alice Calaprice. "[…] An excellent example of a quotation someone made up and attributed to Einstein in order to lend an idea credibility." :p
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685021].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author mwright
          Originally Posted by myob View Post

          "Astrology is a science in itself, and contains an illuminating body of knowledge. It has taught me many things, and I am greatly in debt to it."*

          - Albert Einstein

          *Attributed to Einstein, from "The Expanded Quotable Einstein", by Alice Calaprice. "[...] An excellent example of a quotation someone made up and attributed to Einstein in order to lend an idea credibility." :p
          Blech! Einstein was as sucky astrologer.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685117].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    Originally Posted by mwright View Post

    So even though astrology isn't a science, if ya know what you're talkin about, you can make some pretty good guesses.
    And since it's not a science, exactly how does one know what they're talking about? And why would anyone believe what they say, especially given the reputation of the practice?
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685029].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mwright
      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      And since it's not a science, exactly how does one know what they're talking about? And why would anyone believe what they say, especially given the reputation of the practice?
      The same way a person would know a recipe. 1 cup of this and 3 cups of that baked for 30 minutes will yield basically the same result for anyone who follows the formula.

      "Science" implies a rigor that isn't usually required to gain knowledge that's useful. Astrology as a body of knowledge doesn't have to be a science to be useful.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685105].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
        Originally Posted by mwright View Post

        The same way a person would know a recipe. 1 cup of this and 3 cups of that baked for 30 minutes will yield basically the same result for anyone who follows the formula.

        "Science" implies a rigor that isn't usually required to gain knowledge that's useful. Astrology as a body of knowledge doesn't have to be a science to be useful.
        Are you implying that astrology is based on formulae? And if so, doesn't having formulae to follow imply a science, however lost or lacking in controls the case may be?

        I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand. What I know about astrology could be summed up in paragraph or two, and half of that would be about horoscopes. It's just not something I've ever looked into beyond letting a friends wife give me reading once because she asked to do it (which was, incidently, a load of codswallop).
        Signature

        Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685227].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HKSEO Jonbones
          Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

          Are you implying that astrology is based on formulae? And if so, doesn't having formulae to follow imply a science, however lost or lacking in controls the case may be?

          I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand. What I know about astrology could be summed up in paragraph or two, and half of that would be about horoscopes. It's just not something I've ever looked into beyond letting a friends wife give me reading once because she asked to do it (which was, incidently, a load of codswallop).
          Science is based on fact and reality. Not Constellational alignments and the positions of chakras.

          Calling astrology a science is like calling a Ford Fiesta a NASCAR. It just doesn't fit.
          Signature
          Letmeknowseo.comSEO News and tips From real SEO'ers!
          Linklicious- Get your links crawled, so they can count
          SEO Black Book By: R.L. Adams An Insider's Guide to the SEO Industry
          Glowing Reviews- Get your Online Business Reviews to STICK!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685272].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
            Originally Posted by HKSEO Jonbones View Post

            Science is based on fact and reality. Not Constellational alignments and the positions of chakras.

            Calling astrology a science is like calling a Ford Fiesta a NASCAR. It just doesn't fit.
            Constellation alignments are not "fact" and "reality?"

            By the way, I'm not calling astrology a science. I'm just inquiring about other people's positions. I don't know enough about it to have a position.
            Signature

            Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685329].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

            This discussion has taken an interesting turn. Astrology is based on fact and reality, too. How is astrology less scientific than psychology?
            Astrology is based on an observation that, as the span of nonoccurrence increases, the reliability DECREASES, coupled with myth and observations that were claimed to have been made LONG ago! Ironically, the shorter that time span is with a reliable history the more the reliability DECREASES! It is really not a science AT ALL! It may be CONFUSED with astronomy that is FAR closer to a science, but astronomy LACKS the myth and claimed patterns of luck/mentality and stars/planets that astrology has.

            Psychology is not a science AT ALL! It is based on prejudices and application of things based on ones IDEAS of anothers observations. Just this year, IIRC, they changed the DSM *****AGAIN*****! They DON'T understand how the brain works! They DON'T understand how perception works. They DON'T even understand the DSM!(A book CREATED by them and/or their peers!!!!!!!)

            So I guess I have to say NEITHER is a science! Even in the more absolute things, like psychotic behavior, they can't agree as to the nature or cause often and one might cure it while another might make it worse, and another may say nothing can be done!

            Neither is something that you can automate and reliably say THIS is WHY it happened, HOW it may progress, and WHAT we can do to stop it.

            Frankly, I would like to see things with some sort of reliable reference declared sciences. Have 50 clowns at a carnival try to guess your weight and see how reliable THEY are! Use a STANDARD REFERENCE weight and scale, and note how you can accurately detect the weight. A capricious ART just became a reliable SCIENCE!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685405].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author mwright
              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              Astrology is based on an observation that, as the span of nonoccurrence increases, the reliability DECREASES, coupled with myth and observations that were claimed to have been made LONG ago! Ironically, the shorter that time span is with a reliable history the more the reliability DECREASES! It is really not a science AT ALL! It may be CONFUSED with astronomy that is FAR closer to a science, but astronomy LACKS the myth and claimed patterns of luck/mentality and stars/planets that astrology has.

              Psychology is not a science AT ALL! It is based on prejudices and application of things based on ones IDEAS of anothers observations. Just this year, IIRC, they changed the DSM *****AGAIN*****! They DON'T understand how the brain works! They DON'T understand how perception works. They DON'T even understand the DSM!(A book CREATED by them and/or their peers!!!!!!!)

              So I guess I have to say NEITHER is a science! Even in the more absolute things, like psychotic behavior, they can't agree as to the nature or cause often and one might cure it while another might make it worse, and another may say nothing can be done!

              Neither is something that you can automate and reliably say THIS is WHY it happened, HOW it may progress, and WHAT we can do to stop it.

              Frankly, I would like to see things with some sort of reliable reference declared sciences. Have 50 clowns at a carnival try to guess your weight and see how reliable THEY are! Use a STANDARD REFERENCE weight and scale, and note how you can accurately detect the weight. A capricious ART just became a reliable SCIENCE!

              Steve
              My goal has always been to understand what astrology can reliably describe.

              The planetary configuration I came up with has a 1 in 8400 chance of occurring. But it's estimated that 2% of the population has Tourette syndrome. I can't possibly think that the configuration is present in every case of the disease.

              But of the number of factors I could have chosen, I picked three that would make sense to most astrologers, even if they would disagree. And there happened to be a chart available to confirm my guess. And I'm okay with that.

              Reliability has to be cultivated over time. Relevant tests need be developed in the spirit of agnosticism, to draw conclusions, which need to be subsequently questioned so that the next tests can move us closer to the truth... whatever it is.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685587].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author mwright
          Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

          Are you implying that astrology is based on formulae? And if so, doesn't having formulae to follow imply a science, however lost or lacking in controls the case may be?

          I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand. What I know about astrology could be summed up in paragraph or two, and half of that would be about horoscopes. It's just not something I've ever looked into beyond letting a friends wife give me reading once because she asked to do it (which was, incidently, a load of codswallop).
          Blech! Codswallop was a worse astrologer than Einstein!

          But yes. In the broadest sense "science" refers to any body of knowledge. And anything can be looked at in a "scientific" way... making hypotheses, collecting data, testing. etc...

          You know no less than most people who believe/disbelieve in astrology. And you're not being argumentative. You're making an effort to understand, which is more than many believers/disbelievers will do.

          My story was meant to show that whether or not astrology is a science in the academic sense, it IS a body of knowledge that can answer questions which may never be asked by someone who simply believes/disbelieves in astrology.

          Thanks for your indulgence!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685399].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
            Originally Posted by mwright View Post


            My story was meant to show that whether or not astrology is a science in the academic sense, it IS a body of knowledge that can answer questions which may never be asked by someone who simply believes/disbelieves in astrology.

            Thanks for your indulgence!
            ...and you yours. The thread has become the "hot topic" of the moment, so I now return you to your previously scheduled program.
            Signature

            Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685460].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
          Originally Posted by HKSEO Jonbones View Post


          Do you also believe in phrenology?
          Um.......I think a person's character is more determined by how far they have their head buried where the sun don't shine rather than the shape of their head.



          Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

          Are you implying that astrology is based on formulae? And if so, doesn't having formulae to follow imply a science, however lost or lacking in controls the case may be?

          I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand. What I know about astrology could be summed up in paragraph or two, and half of that would be about horoscopes. It's just not something I've ever looked into beyond letting a friends wife give me reading once because she asked to do it (which was, incidently, a load of codswallop).
          Dennis - it is based on formulae. People who are actually well studied in astrology use positions of planets, stars, the moon, sun relative to time, and even to your position on the planet at xx time. It's strikingly complicated. There are few true masters because it takes so long to learn, and the learning is never complete. That's why a chart from an Eastern master can be so shocking.

          I had one made for me once as a present from a friend who was an amateur in a few areas of metaphysics and it was just literally astounding. There was no way to dismiss the accuracy of many factors. It was so far removed from anything I've seen in books over here that it wasn't even in the same realms as what we consider astrology. I'm really sure there are very few who know the subject so thoroughly as whoever it was that did that chart.

          Anyhow - any metaphysical subject draws a lot of charlatans. People don't have an in-depth knowledge of most of those types of subjects so either see the charlatans for amusement, or are just not sharp enough to know when they are being duped. I never once considered astrology as anything but ancient superstition until I saw that chart. Now I'm not all so sure that at least a few people somewhere might not still have a key that works.
          Signature

          Sal
          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
          Beyond the Path

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7687156].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    There are TONS of quacks in it, not that I met any that were clear enough, etc...

    And 2 matches, although quite a coincidence given the circumstances, are to almost be EXPECTED! ESPECIALLY since you were in the same area.

    Suppose a given person there had this theory, saw one person with it, and told you of that person, messing up the details, and then you misunderstood them as saying that this person was such a case. Even though NOBODY is locally known to be a case, YOU are led to believe TWO are. I HAVE seen such things happen before.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685069].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    IF we wanna get really technical - it used to be considered a science. Go tell an ancient Egyptian it wasn't science. I'm not sure what their version of "wearing tinfoil" was, but they'd sure let ya know.

    Most people think of astrology as the crap you see in the daily entertainment section of the newspaper but if you actually have one done by one of the Eastern masters, they can astound the heck out of you.

    I've never had enough interest to go deep into it enough to really know exactly how precise it is, but it deals with energy and how your body's energy is harmonized does effect your health etc so I'm withholding judgement either way. I hate to call anything bunk when there is so much we used to call bunk that has been proven completely correct.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685100].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HKSEO Jonbones
    Any random events can be connected to be seemingly related.

    Do you also believe in phrenology?

    I have some great ocean front property in Wyoming I'd love to show you, if you do.
    Signature
    Letmeknowseo.comSEO News and tips From real SEO'ers!
    Linklicious- Get your links crawled, so they can count
    SEO Black Book By: R.L. Adams An Insider's Guide to the SEO Industry
    Glowing Reviews- Get your Online Business Reviews to STICK!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685107].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mwright
      Originally Posted by HKSEO Jonbones View Post

      Any random events can be connected to be seemingly related.

      Do you also believe in phrenology?

      I have some great ocean front property in Wyoming I'd love to show you, if you do.
      If if produces income, send me the papers.

      But, yes. Any 2, 3, or 4000 random things can be connected by some factor that is common to a number of things equal to or greater than that number.

      But, fewer things are connected by a subset of a larger number of factors that could be common to the aforementioned things, but are not.

      My knowledge of astrology allows me to eliminate the improbable connections, and focus on the ones that are most likely to occur with a frequency greater than chance.

      There's nothing random about that.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685302].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jack Gordon
    Myanus thinks Uranus is full of it.

    Signature
    Fifteen Lessons I have learned over 15 years and six businesses (or, My 1000th-Post Manifesto)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685122].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mwright
      Originally Posted by rocket2uranus View Post

      Myanus thinks Uranus is full of it.
      3 words; T...M...I. LOL
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685422].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author J Bold
    Not only are you an astrologer, but you're a great diagnostician as well!

    Move over Dr. House!
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685412].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mwright
      Originally Posted by J Bold View Post

      Not only are you an astrologer, but you're a great diagnostician as well!

      Move over Dr. House!
      Haha! Thanks.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685463].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
    I'll believe in Astrology (and other psychics and fortune tellers) when they can pick the winning lotto numbers.
    Signature
    Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
    So that blind people can hate them as well.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685518].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mwright
      Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

      Psychics pick winning lottery numbers all the time. They just play them on the wrong day.
      Uff! No wonder I've been reduced to selling stuff on the interwebths :p
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685597].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
    Wow, what a coincidence.
    Signature

    :)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685633].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Don Schenk
    To the last astrologer I met, I said, "You keep Uranus to urself, and I'll keep my..."

    Well you get the drift.

    :-Don
    Signature

    Studies prove happier people have massively more success. It has worked for me. Use this one trick too... Click Here

    Total Competition Stomper - Simply the most powerful tactic your IM or Offline business will ever use... See it here!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685891].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
      Reliability has to be cultivated over time. Relevant tests need be developed in the spirit of agnosticism, to draw conclusions, which need to be subsequently questioned so that the next tests can move us closer to the truth... whatever it is.
      Yep, have been following the Au paper for years and most of the time he is spot on! Now and then he is off!

      So, on a statistical bases, it is accurate, but l have dabbled with this sort of thing, and know that there is something to it!

      Shane

      PS tatts, numbers are a tough one because everyone else wants to know as well, or it isn't meant to happen, etc.

      I have tried it myself, and got good results but didn't win the big one!

      I may fiddle around with it one day, but at the moment l will stay with creating a worthwhile product instead.


      There is more than one way to skin a black cat!
      Signature
      Archimedes Forum, Sign up l won't bite
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685971].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MoneyMagnetMagnate
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7685982].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      Go tell an ancient Egyptian it wasn't science.
      I tried to call them - no answer.:p
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7686116].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mwright
      Originally Posted by MoneyMagnetMagnate View Post

      Randi's experiment exploits confirmation bias by giving everyone a fake horoscope that could apply to anyone.

      You don't declare the alphabet bogus because everyone in a roomful of people can find the letters of their name in it.

      You test the validity of the alphabet by giving people sheets of paper which contain only letters that appear their name. When the sheet is passed to someone else, they can't confirm that those letters appear in their name if they do not. The alphabet is fine.

      My "hypothesis" was based on what I know about astrology, and what I assume about the nature of Tourette syndrome. My hypothesis was confirmed by the chart of someone who actually has the syndrome AND the the three factors I pointed out.

      But, unless I "test" the hypothesis with a huge sample of known Tourette sufferers who can produce accurate birth data to erect astrological charts, it wouldn't make sense to "conclude" that the three factors I pointed out are present in every case of Tourette.

      Whether or not astrology is a science, I'm interested in seeing it approached scientifically, critically and skeptically, not simply believed/disbelieved in.

      Michael Shermer (SUPER VIRGO!!!) actually conducted a legitimately scientific study, which unfortunately he was unable to finish.

      Randi was halfway there... then went for the cheap laugh.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7689821].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bravo75
    We will not be able to determine if astrology is a science or not until we understand the universe. So in another 1,000,000 years or 2, we can come back to this thread and settle the debate.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7687366].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
      Originally Posted by bravo75 View Post

      We will not be able to determine if astrology is a science or not until we understand the universe. So in another 1,000,000 years or 2, we can come back to this thread and settle the debate.
      I've marked that in my calendar .
      Signature
      Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
      So that blind people can hate them as well.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7689236].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jack Gordon
    Wrong.

    Science is a method. Astrology fails on every count, as do ghosts, ESP, afterlife and - dare I say it - organized religion.

    If you cannot propose a hypothesis, test it, repeat the results and have others do the same, it fails the science test.
    Signature
    Fifteen Lessons I have learned over 15 years and six businesses (or, My 1000th-Post Manifesto)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7688658].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mwright
      Originally Posted by rocket2uranus View Post

      Astrology fails on every count
      So does universal quantification.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7689835].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mwright
      Originally Posted by rocket2uranus View Post

      Wrong.

      Science is a method. Astrology fails on every count, as do ghosts, ESP, afterlife and - dare I say it - organized religion.

      If you cannot propose a hypothesis, test it, repeat the results and have others do the same, it fails the science test.
      "Science" is knowledge. The "scientific method" (hypothesis, test it, repeat, etc.) can be applied to a subject to GAIN knowledge. Whether or not we believe in them, astrology, ghosts, ESP, afterlife, can all be subjects of scientific evaluation.

      If you want to approach astrology in a scientific way, you make a hypothesis about which astrological factors are most likely to be present in a given situation.

      You test it by getting accurate time and place data for the situation, and calculate an astrological chart to see if the factors you hypothesized would be present are present.

      You repeat the test multiple times by collecting time and place data for multiple instances of the same situation, calculating charts, etc...

      If the factors you hypothesized would be present are present with a frequency greater than chance, you ask other astrologers to do the test themselves.

      If you run the test hundreds of thousands of times, and the astrological factors that most astrologers hypothesized would be present are present with a frequency great than chance, it doesn't necessarily qualify or disqualify astrology as a science...

      ... but at least it will have been approached scientifically instead of simply being believed/disbelieved.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7689955].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author John Rogers
    Science is over-rated. In a decade much of what science insists is true today will have changed completely.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7689859].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jack Gordon
    I struck a nerve.

    Let me just say this... for those who believe there is any "science" to be salvaged out of astrology, the onus is completely on you to show that there is something there.

    As Carl Sagan was famously quoted, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
    Signature
    Fifteen Lessons I have learned over 15 years and six businesses (or, My 1000th-Post Manifesto)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7690053].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mwright
      Originally Posted by rocket2uranus View Post

      I struck a nerve.

      Let me just say this... for those who believe there is any "science" to be salvaged out of astrology, the onus is completely on you to show that there is something there.

      As Carl Sagan was famously quoted, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
      No nerve struck. I've been saying the same thing the whole time, but decided to elaborate. I don't mind onus... neither did Carl Sagan.

      Sucks though that non-existence can't be proven... no onus for naysayers.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7690108].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        If you want to approach astrology in a scientific way, you make a hypothesis about which astrological factors are most likely to be present in a given situation.

        You test it by getting accurate time and place data for the situation, and calculate an astrological chart to see if the factors you hypothesized would be present are present.
        A true test would be to create charts and hypothesize what WILL happen and then record what happens during that period of time.

        Testing and charting after an event has occurred holds a high risk of scientific bias in interpretation.

        I loved the Cosmos series and still occasionally listen to the Cosmos music CDs.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7690391].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author mwright
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          A true test would be to create charts and hypothesize what WILL happen and then record what happens during that period of time.

          Testing and charting after an event has occurred holds a high risk of scientific bias in interpretation.

          I loved the Cosmos series and still occasionally listen to the Cosmos music CDs.
          Thanks Kay! I knew someone would eventually correct me. Now I'm more armed and more dangerouser!

          I loved Cosmos too. And though I never listened to the music CDs, I can cold rock a turtleneck and blazer! OPPA SAGAN STYYYYLE!!!!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7690513].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    It would be something monumentally close to miraculous just to be able to recreate the energy necessary to be recreated to prove astrology. I don't think that anyone has come close to being able to re-create an energy that was partially dependent on space time to exist in the particular form it existed in at the time.

    There's just some things we aren't ever going to know and sometimes, we might just be better off if we admit that.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7690526].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
      Wrong.

      Science is a method. Astrology fails on every count, as do ghosts, ESP, afterlife and - dare I say it - organized religion.

      If you cannot propose a hypothesis, test it, repeat the results and have others do the same, it fails the science test.
      Yes, interesting thing about all of this is there are technologies about that can prove some of this, but it is intentionally buried, by gov, dept.


      A good example is a SQUID, a device that uses super cooled magnets, and some kind of imaging device that can see the human aura or electromagnetic field in real time! Basically see bundles of energy or guides, and conduct experiments to prove they are intelligent, etc.

      Basically prove that we are energy, and other related things, (not getting into religion too much)!

      But not surprisingly when the AU scientist tries to develop this gov, officials raid his laboratory and take it away!


      No, keeping the masses asleep and under control is more important than ground breaking revelations.

      Or things that may make the masses go rampant, quit their jobs, etc!

      Another good example is the experiment the Russians did, l think that it was in the 60's, where they got someone who could move things, and asked him to move a tissue, across a table!

      They used lasers, heat sensors, the works, and found that some kind of energy came out of his forehead and interacted with the tissue to move it!

      Then of course it was buried!


      Unfortunately proving that ghosts exist to a skeptic for example is next to impossible, even when the evidence is obvious, it can still be explained away.

      Best to stay with things that can be proven, and go from there.

      Shane
      Signature
      Archimedes Forum, Sign up l won't bite
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7690642].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jack Gordon
    Yes, conspiracy theories are a close cousin to the paranormal.

    Everything on the table but some kind of evidence...
    Signature
    Fifteen Lessons I have learned over 15 years and six businesses (or, My 1000th-Post Manifesto)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7690934].message }}

Trending Topics