Do you believe in astrology?

[highlanders]

If they investigated it, they would probably realise that a lot of "mystical" things can logically be explained, but not by old concepts of reality, but by new concepts. But they refuse to learn new concepts, thus the problem.

 

 

 

That does not make sense, mystical things like ghosts are supernatural beliefs. A supernatural belief can't be explained logically by definition. Supernatural means that it's not something that naturally occurs and that it 'goes against the laws of nature'. Logic is derived and exists because of those laws of nature. So how can you logically explain something that is illogical?

 

Take an example of ancient times. They looked at the stars and wondered what they were, and they probably made up a ton of stories about them, wondering what they were. The cavemen sceptics probably tried to explain it using concepts they knew. Maybe those sceptics thought it was just fires attached in the sky. That was it, until they were capable to understanding and logically explaining that "mystical" concept. Ghosts by example, perhaps many dimensions truly exist, and that ghosts are in another dimension. Many scientists say that it was possible that many dimensions existed. Perhaps in the future, we will realise that ghosts are actually beings of another dimension, a mystical concept will be logically explained. Our knowledge of reality will expand, and what will be "mystical" will be understood. Understand?

[kelem_ryu]

If they investigated it, they would probably realise that a lot of "mystical" things can logically be explained, but not by old concepts of reality, but by new concepts. But they refuse to learn new concepts, thus the problem.

 

 

 

That does not make sense, mystical things like ghosts are supernatural beliefs. A supernatural belief can't be explained logically by definition. Supernatural means that it's not something that naturally occurs and that it 'goes against the laws of nature'. Logic is derived and exists because of those laws of nature. So how can you logically explain something that is illogical?

 

 

 

How could something exist that defies the laws of nature? There is nothing supernatural. There are just things that don't fit our view of things.

 

 

 

Btw logic isn't derived from the laws of nature. Logic is the study of statements. It uses language in a mathematical way. Both language and mathematics are products of our thinking, not of what we encounter in nature.

 

 

 

ACtually the word "logic" ifs often used inproperly. Most of the time it should say "reason" instead.

[Rebdragon]

Science always tries to explain things conservatively. When faced with an unknown and new concept, instead of looking to expand their knowledge of reality, scientists try to explain the phenomenom using the elements of reality they already know. In other words, they refuse to evolve, they are set in their ways.

 

Obviously you've never heard of Theoretical Physics.

 

 

 

And since most scientists are so dogmatic, and refuse to learn about new or so-called mystical concepts, their view of reality is flawed, and always will.

 

Remind me to fetch warri0r. I'm sure he can quote a couple dozen of his own posts for this little comment.

 

 

 

Scientists, by saving, by example, that ghosts don't exist, they arrogantly claime that they know everything about reality, and the universe, which they don't. If they investigated it, they would probably realise that a lot of "mystical" things can logically be explained, but not by old concepts of reality, but by new concepts. But they refuse to learn new concepts, thus the problem.

 

They don't say ghosts don't exist. They say that no one has proof that they do.

 

 

 

And what's with you and all this "they refuse to learn" stuff :-s ? Had some dogmatic science teacher in school or something?

 

Science is exactly like religion, they accept what fits their set view, and push back and ridiculize everything else that doesn't fit their view. If you say you believe in science, all it means is that you believe in something alike to religion. Your , ok so what? Your not the defender of truth, in any way.

 

Wow.

 

 

 

This may be arrogant, but I'm not even sure I want to justify that comment by countering it.

 

 

 

Not like this forum hasn't had this discussion a thousand times already anyways >_>.

 

 

 

Many scientists say that it was possible that many dimensions existed. Perhaps in the future, we will realise that ghosts are actually beings of another dimension, a mystical concept will be logically explained.

 

No, see, we also experience these so called "other dimensions" in our everyday life (if you're referring to String Theories predictions). They're nothing supernatural. It's extremely complicated, and you're not going to get it by this post, but basically at every point in our three dimensional universe there exists a small wrapped up six-dimensional Calabi-Yau shape "sphere", six dimensions wrapped up into a tiny point.

 

 

 

It really has nothing to do with ghosts; it's just another way of explaining our universe and the matter and energy in it.

[highlanders]

Obviously you've never heard of Theoretical Physics.

 

 

 

Obviously, you noticed no one ever talks about them, or give them any credit at all, cuz theyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅtheoriesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Rebdragon]

Obviously, you noticed no one ever talks about them, or give them any credit at all, cuz theyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅtheoriesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[kelem_ryu]

For those of you a bit curious of it, i found that site (where i took the chart from) that offers free birth charts plus some interpretation. You just need to enter your birth date, city (it works perfectly fine, if you approximate the place, using the nearest bigger city) and birth time (birth time should better be accurate +- 5min would be good) Link

[warri0r45]

There is no "science belief system", science is not based on quasi-religious/mystical beliefs or superstitions, it's based on evidence and fact. So yeah, you're right that astrology doesn't fit with any experimental evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

What troubles me most about science is that people are so convinced that their methods are the only legetimate. Scientific de facto immunizes (and i consciously use that term) itself against any doubt using scientific method. Everything that doesn't quite fit is immeadiately debunked: "unscientifical", "pseudo science", "true believer". (1) To me scientific methode qualifys as "quasi-religious/mystical belief or as "superstition". Also science isn't based on facts as you claim. (2) It is based on theories that are supported by sufficient evidence. So that are basically believes there to. (3) You believe some theories to be true, because scientific methode yielded enough supportive evidence. Blasphemy, i know.

 

 

 

Science sets the rules (its own rules). Everything that doesn't fit is debunked.

 

 

 

I guess this should be another topic though.

 

 

 

(1) Please, explain why. I'd love to see your justification for labelling a methodology as superstitious.

 

(2) Which means what, exactly? It means those theories not supported by evidence aren't accepted and thus, science is ultimately based on the evidence.

 

(3) I don't believe a theory to be true. I accept a theory to be supported by the evidence.

 

 

 

Also, as I've explained to you before, science is not a belief system. It's a methodology which very much recognises it's own limits. By sticking to the method, it's not saying others are wrong.

 

 

 

I don't get the science bashing coming from you. Whats the deal? Are you a bit down because science dosen't recognise Astrology? If you're so convinced of it, convince me.

[warri0r45]

There is no "science belief system", science is not based on quasi-religious/mystical beliefs or superstitions, it's based on evidence and fact. So yeah, you're right that astrology doesn't fit with any experimental evidence.

 

(1) Science always tries to explain things conservatively. When faced with an unknown and new concept, instead of looking to expand their knowledge of reality, scientists try to explain the phenomenom using the elements of reality they already know. In other words, they refuse to evolve, they are set in their ways.

 

 

 

(2) Bermuda triangle by example, any scientific explanation was pure theory, and was never practically proven. Actually, I'm certain the bermuda triangle phenomenom can be explained very logically. If they were ready to learn new things and research the bermuda triangle, the scientists could learn new information about how the ocean floor works, or the presence of certain minerals having certain consequences. They could learn new things. But instead, they say it's old news, and refuse to investigate or learn about it.

 

 

 

(3) And since most scientists are so dogmatic, and refuse to learn about new or so-called mystical concepts, their view of reality is flawed, and always will. (4) Scientists, by saving, by example, that ghosts don't exist, they arrogantly claime that they know everything about reality, and the universe, which they don't. (5) If they investigated it, they would probably realise that a lot of "mystical" things can logically be explained, but not by old concepts of reality, but by new concepts. But they refuse to learn new concepts, thus the problem.

 

 

 

(6) Science is exactly like religion, they accept what fits their set view, and push back and ridiculize everything else that doesn't fit their view. If you say you believe in science, all it means is that you believe in something alike to religion. Your , ok so what? Your not the defender of truth, in any way.

 

 

 

(1) Science is limited as a naturalistic methodology, yes. It knows these limits because straying gets us nowhere. Practicality wise, what you're asking would root advancement something cronic.

 

 

 

I'm intrigued how you would justify explaining an element of reality using something we don't know? Thor or Zeus, anyone? It's ok, Highlanders, you can stop worrying, I'll shoot through that Thor paper of lighting conduction to the journal 'Science' tomorrow. Let's see how much practical use we can get out of my baseless assumption.

 

 

 

(2) Sounds like you're up to date on the Bermuda triangle. Care to explain what it is you are talking about here?

 

 

 

(3) Oh god, science is dogmatic but mystical concepts are not? You've got the definition of dogmatic backwards, Highlanders.

 

 

 

(4) I'll make you a deal. Show me one scientist who states science has categorically found that ghosts do not exist so I can slap him/her up the side of the head, ok? Science does not proclaim that which it can not know. It states nothing of the existance of supernatural notions.

 

 

 

Thus, your claim that scientists claim they know everything about the universe is bunk. They don't, and they know it.

 

 

 

(5) I need an example, please. What mystical occurance can be explained via a new concept of reality. If you could, also try and make some sort of pragmatic link to the human race, which is ultimately what science's purpose is.

 

 

 

(6) Exactly like religion? That's rather wishful thinking. Science uses a method to uncover unknowns while religion claims it already has all the answers. Science freely welcomes correction of wrong ideas while religion has all the answers and thus can not be corrected.

 

 

 

Perhaps you should enlighten us all of your new concept of reality and how it practically relates to us.

[kelem_ryu]

I don't get the science bashing coming from you. Whats the deal? Are you a bit down because science dosen't recognise Astrology? If you're so convinced of it, convince me.

 

 

 

I'm not going to argue at this point. I'll just tell you where i am coming from. So don't count what i'm going to type as argument. (Well i guess it would classify as authority argument. I won't delete it now anyway. *sighs*)

 

 

 

I've spent lots of time gathering data and thinking about stuff. I'm constantly putting pieces together, drew some conclusions, raised questions and so forth. On top of that i had some unusal experiences during my life. All that has led to some set of believes. Unfortunately they differ from what is commonly accepted knowledge.

 

 

 

Now i read and hear (for example in this thread) more then often that what i think is true, is not only false, but it's crap and people thinking tha way are morons. So i considered that. Maybe i'm not too smart. I considerably lack self confidence and there are so many people out there, who are very confident about their claims, whatever they may be. So i always were led to believe that since they are so confident they have to be right. How could they be so confident?

 

 

 

Although everybody who knows me in person assures me that i'm very bright, most very convinced i'm more keen then they are, i'm not easily convinced by such remarks. Pondering on that though, comparing myself to other people, i found that i can concentrate very long, get things rather quick and such, i even made aome IQ tests (partly because i find them fun) and score way above average all the time. So i guess other people can't be more right because they think on a way higher level.

 

 

 

Then how comes that people can be so convinced? It seems that has nothing to do with how corect they are. People can be convinced about the stupidest things, like those that want to ban Harry Potter from schools, because it is advertising witchcraft -.-

 

 

 

I concluded that maybe i just should stick to my theories even though i don't get direct affirmation from outside. Then again i seriously considered to throw all my theories over board and believe what is commonly accepted, so that i'm not in conflict anymore. My theories don't make me happy or anything after all. Maybe they are just there so i can feel important, because i'm right and such - to stroke my ego. Maybe i'm wrong after all and my theories are based only on wishful thinking. However it's not the arguments that make me want to refute. It's the feeling that i'm seen as a misfit and as stupid - that i'm laughed on. I don't know if it is as important to me to be right (and i don't even know about that for sure. I don't want to be ostracized. Maybe 2+2=5, if you know the quote.)

 

 

 

If you wonder what those theories i spoke of are, here is what i can think of atm.

 

 

 

Whatever you believe to be true, is true.

 

There is not really a difference between dreaming and being awake.

 

The physical world is a shadow of some kind of world that's more real.

 

Whatever you encounter is a reflection of (a part of) yourself.

 

The concept of "love" is significant in a way.

 

 

 

I can elaborate on those if you want.

 

 

 

 

 

Why i bashed on science? Because i'm insecure and hurt.

[warri0r45]

I don't get the science bashing coming from you. Whats the deal? Are you a bit down because science dosen't recognise Astrology? If you're so convinced of it, convince me.

 

 

 

I'm not going to argue at this point. I'll just tell you where i am coming from. So don't count what i'm going to type as argument. (Well i guess it would classify as authority argument. I won't delete it now anyway. *sighs*)

 

 

 

I've spent lots of time gathering data and thinking about stuff. I'm constantly putting pieces together, drew some conclusions, raised questions and so forth. On top of that i had some unusal experiences during my life. All that has led to some set of believes. Unfortunately they differ from what is commonly accepted knowledge.

 

 

 

Now i read and hear (for example in this thread) more then often that what i think is true, is not only false, but it's crap and people thinking tha way are morons. So i considered that. Maybe i'm not too smart. I considerably lack self confidence and there are so many people out there, who are very confident about their claims, whatever they may be. So i always were led to believe that since they are so confident they have to be right. How could they be so confident?

 

 

 

Although everybody who knows me in person assures me that i'm very bright, most very convinced i'm more keen then they are, i'm not easily convinced by such remarks. Pondering on that though, comparing myself to other people, i found that i can concentrate very long, get things rather quick and such, i even made aome IQ tests (partly because i find them fun) and score way above average all the time. So i guess other people can't be more right because they think on a way higher level.

 

 

 

Then how comes that people can be so convinced? It seems that has nothing to do with how corect they are. People can be convinced about the stupidest things, like those that want to ban Harry Potter from schools, because it is advertising witchcraft -.-

 

 

 

I concluded that maybe i just should stick to my theories even though i don't get direct affirmation from outside. Then again i seriously considered to throw all my theories over board and believe what is commonly accepted, so that i'm not in conflict anymore. My theories don't make me happy or anything after all. Maybe they are just there so i can feel important, because i'm right and such - to stroke my ego. Maybe i'm wrong after all and my theories are based only on wishful thinking. However it's not the arguments that make me want to refute. It's the feeling that i'm seen as a misfit and as stupid - that i'm laughed on. I don't know if it is as important to me to be right (and i don't even know about that for sure. I don't want to be ostracized. Maybe 2+2=5, if you know the quote.)

 

 

 

If you wonder what those theories i spoke of are, here is what i can think of atm.

 

 

 

Whatever you believe to be true, is true.

 

There is not really a difference between dreaming and being awake.

 

The physical world is a shadow of some kind of world that's more real.

 

Whatever you encounter is a reflection of (a part of) yourself.

 

The concept of "love" is significant in a way.

 

 

 

I can elaborate on those if you want.

 

 

 

 

 

Why i bashed on science? Because i'm insecure and hurt.

 

 

 

Kelem, thanks for the insight. I think you need to recognise the difference between science itself and some who feel they know more than you because they accept science. Science itself isn't laughing at you or thinking you're a moron because you think in an alternate way and you can rest assured I don't think that way either.

 

 

 

Science is just one of many ways of looking at the world and uncovering knowlege. It's inescapable, though, that it's the one which produces the most useful results.

[kelem_ryu]

I don't get the science bashing coming from you. Whats the deal? Are you a bit down because science dosen't recognise Astrology? If you're so convinced of it, convince me.

 

 

 

bla bla blub

 

 

 

Kelem, thanks for the insight. I think you need to recognise the difference between science itself and some who feel they know more than you because they accept science. Science itself isn't laughing at you or thinking you're a moron because you think in an alternate way and you can rest assured I don't think that way either.

 

 

 

Science is just one of many ways of looking at the world and uncovering knowlege. It's inescapable, though, that it's the one which produces the most useful results.

 

 

 

I does seem a little like religion in the following way though: People are bashing believes, outlooks and such in the name of science, like people were killing disbelievers in the name of christ.

 

 

 

I watched some very interesting documentaries recently. Seems there are many actual scientists out there, who pursue ideas that the mainstream would laugh about.

 

 

 

I probably should write a book, like everybody seems to do nowadays. There are more obscure ideas that actually sell. I'm just too damn sensitive about what others think about me and also think there are already enough books out there. That doesn't preven other people from writing new ones though.

 

 

 

Somehow this whole debatting here on tip.it.. idk.. it's mostly just arguing for the sake of argument. Basically nothing wrong with that, but recently i found it to be quite disstatisfying.

 

 

 

Oh well.. i posted this link to the astrology site in some post above. I guess it's at least somewhat fun a read.

[warri0r45]

I don't get the science bashing coming from you. Whats the deal? Are you a bit down because science dosen't recognise Astrology? If you're so convinced of it, convince me.

 

 

 

bla bla blub

 

 

 

Kelem, thanks for the insight. I think you need to recognise the difference between science itself and some who feel they know more than you because they accept science. Science itself isn't laughing at you or thinking you're a moron because you think in an alternate way and you can rest assured I don't think that way either.

 

 

 

Science is just one of many ways of looking at the world and uncovering knowlege. It's inescapable, though, that it's the one which produces the most useful results.

 

 

 

I does seem a little like religion in the following way though: People are bashing believes, outlooks and such in the name of science, like people were killing disbelievers in the name of christ.

 

 

 

I watched some very interesting documentaries recently. Seems there are many actual scientists out there, who pursue ideas that the mainstream would laugh about.

 

 

 

I probably should write a book, like everybody seems to do nowadays. There are more obscure ideas that actually sell. I'm just too damn sensitive about what others think about me and also think there are already enough books out there. That doesn't preven other people from writing new ones though.

 

 

 

Somehow this whole debatting here on tip.it.. idk.. it's mostly just arguing for the sake of argument. Basically nothing wrong with that, but recently i found it to be quite disstatisfying.

 

 

 

Oh well.. i posted this link to the astrology site in some post above. I guess it's at least somewhat fun a read.

 

 

 

The key words here being 'a little like.' It's prone to abuse just like anything else. Other than that, it's so different from a religion that it being placed with such a tag is not only wrong, but unfair (by the way your comparison of someone bashing a belief to killing people is a long bow to draw). You've got to look at this without this grudge on your back. I wouldn't say all Christians are fundamentalists because of the actions of the few just like it's not right for you to suggest that science is intolerant and unaccepting of descent just because of how the few misuse it.

 

 

 

And I'm telling you straight up those who call you a moron or stupid because you have different views are not speaking on behalf of science; they are speaking from thier narrow view which assumes science explains everything and thus anything not explained by science dosen't exist or is bunk. Science dosen't explain everything, and it knows that.

[Nadril]

Scientific views do change, and dramatically.

 

 

 

Look at how people explained stuff scientifically in the 1400's and look at, as an example, Christianity (religion).

 

 

 

 

 

Now look at science at 2007 and religion at 2007. :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Point is it does change, even drastically. However trying to explain something by coming up with a guess out of thin error doesn't get us anywhere. We have to stick by general ideas we already know or its not going to get us anywhere.

 

 

 

 

 

Look at quantum physics for example. Its very much relatively new and is going to areas where we've never dared to think about before. Questions that can't be answered using normal theories are getting expanded without trying to come up with, again, a guess in the dark.

 

 

 

 

 

Heres another thing. Right now a lot of these large 'mysteries' that are 'unexplainable' can be explained. Look at these threads from the past week for example. A scary picture of a ghost can be explained as either yourself seeing things, over exaggerating something or a technological failure (flash from a camera, ect.)

[warri0r45]

Scientific views do change, and dramatically.

 

 

 

Look at how people explained stuff scientifically in the 1400's and look at, as an example, Christianity (religion).

 

 

 

 

 

Now look at science at 2007 and religion at 2007. :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Point is it does change, even drastically. However trying to explain something by coming up with a guess out of thin error doesn't get us anywhere. We have to stick by general ideas we already know or its not going to get us anywhere.

 

 

 

 

 

Look at quantum physics for example. Its very much relatively new and is going to areas where we've never dared to think about before. Questions that can't be answered using normal theories are getting expanded without trying to come up with, again, a guess in the dark.

 

 

 

 

 

Heres another thing. Right now a lot of these large 'mysteries' that are 'unexplainable' can be explained. Look at these threads from the past week for example. A scary picture of a ghost can be explained as either yourself seeing things, over exaggerating something or a technological failure (flash from a camera, ect.)

 

 

 

Exactly. Although I think thier arguments were that the method of analysing things dosen't change. It's still much the same as it has always been (dispite refinements along the way) but these days we just have more tools and know-how. Which, coincidentaly, all came about through the tried and tested method. It's brought us a huge number of paradigm shifts, like the quantum physics example you gave.

 

 

 

I'm interested to hear Highlanders view on what would be a better method of analysis of reality. The point I'd like to put out there is that there has been no other way of looking at things which has brought us so many tangible and relevant results.

[Adam007]

This video on Derren Brown's show just came up on digg. If you even slightly believe in astrology or any of that stuff, watch this.

[kelem_ryu]

This video on Derren Brown's show just came up on digg. If you even slightly believe in astrology or any of that stuff, watch this.

 

 

 

The guy is amazing. I have seen other stuff by him to.

 

 

 

It's interesting that people seem to share so many traits that they'd consider unique and seemingly aren't. Nevertheless every person is different. So a truely personal discription of a person would have to include different things. Maybe such a discription is only possible in comparison. I mean every person is shy, headstrong, smart and whatnot in a way.

 

 

 

I actually consulted a professional astrologer once and wasn't impressed in the least. She didn't tell me anything i could work with. Once i met a guy on university who earned some money with astrology, so i drew my horoscope and he interpreted it (for free of course). Sitting there it all seemed okay and such, but later reflecting on it, it occured to me that he just gave away the impression he had about me. I don't think he did that consciously though. I think that he believed he saw that in the stars.

 

 

 

At least many astrologers have no clue about what they are doing and are in fact cold reading (sucounsciously though).

 

 

 

Maybe i should put some effort into my ascendant guessing game, so that i can make up a statistic for myself and see if there is any accuracy about it. Question: How would i have to set up an experiment so that it could be approved of?

[Mercifull]

Get 400 people of equal star signs. Give them privately the exact same reading and get them to judge how accurate it was. Then tell them that they all got the same reading and once again ask how accurate it was.Most people will change their opinion to say that it was now not accurate and instead very vague