Astrology Predicts Meanings, Not Events
- Thread starter amzolt
- Start date
amzolt
Well-known member
Re: other variables, to amzolt
But, I have addressed that point...
Go ahead and debate my "assumption"... I was there and had 25 years of astrological study behind me when the interviews happened... Now I have 40 years of experience; so, debate what you call my "assumptions" all you want... I know what I know.
But, I have addressed that point...
Go ahead and debate my "assumption"... I was there and had 25 years of astrological study behind me when the interviews happened... Now I have 40 years of experience; so, debate what you call my "assumptions" all you want... I know what I know.
Re: other variables, to amzolt
I am not debating your ability as an astrologer, nor am I debating your honestly.
My point is that I don't think we can verify the exact moment of birth unless we are there personally to see the birth and record the time.
I'm not being impolite, and I'm not being arrogant or condescending. If you don't agree with my point, we simply don't agree.
I'm not debating your assumption that both men were born at exactly the same time, the same minute. I am suggesting that this is impossible to prove. You were not there at both births. There is no one who can verify that both men were born the same minute.
I am not debating your ability as an astrologer, nor am I debating your honestly.
My point is that I don't think we can verify the exact moment of birth unless we are there personally to see the birth and record the time.
I'm not being impolite, and I'm not being arrogant or condescending. If you don't agree with my point, we simply don't agree.
amzolt
Well-known member
Re: other variables, to amzolt
Then, we simply don't agree...
Well, maybe "we" can't verify the exact birth times but "I" did--fact, and not so hard for an experienced astrologer...
I'm not being impolite, and I'm not being arrogant or condescending. If you don't agree with my point, we simply don't agree.
Then, we simply don't agree...
Frank
Well-known member
Re: other variables, to amzolt
Are you implying that you "verified" the exact time by some rectification technique?
Are you implying that you "verified" the exact time by some rectification technique?
amzolt
Well-known member
Re: other variables, to amzolt
A modified form of "on-the-fly" rectification (the aspect was a Saturn transit so time was "slow") but also more common sense methods of verification that aided the effort--nurses' interviews, public records, psychological analysis, and family memories...
The cumulative accuracy of birth time, considering the speed of Saturn and other supporting aspects, was within three seconds...
A modified form of "on-the-fly" rectification (the aspect was a Saturn transit so time was "slow") but also more common sense methods of verification that aided the effort--nurses' interviews, public records, psychological analysis, and family memories...
The cumulative accuracy of birth time, considering the speed of Saturn and other supporting aspects, was within three seconds...
lillyjgc
Senior Member, Educational board Editor
Re: other variables, to amzolt
Ok, so now I feel totally justified in my initial skepticism! As far as i'm concerned, Astrology is not and never was a *science*.William Lilly refers to it as an *art*.The drawing up of a chart does require the application of some science (not rocket science! but not a *piece of cake* either!)..As much of astrology involves the skill of integrating and interpreting information, often the accuracy of the interpretation depends wholly on the astrologer's ability to do this.
Theres an inherent contradiction in what you are doing here Amzolt:
On the one hand you are claiming to have *disproven* a theory using anecdotal information.A conversation with 2 guys does not constitute the application of scientific principles!
If you really wanted to demonstrate your point, you could have posted the data, written an analysis of the charts and finished up with a *logical* conclusion.(Or allowed we poor deluded mortals to reach our own conclusions.)
You proved my point. A time difference of 3 seconds makes a difference.A time difference of 0.0003 seconds would also make a difference-its just that we arent precise enough in our measurements yet to utilise that information.
I am skeptical of *rectified* charts because their accuracy is solely based on the Astrologer's subjective interpretation of events and the astrological mirrors of those events.The skill of the astrologer becomes even more key. Plenty of room for error there!.
Lillyjgc
Ok, so now I feel totally justified in my initial skepticism! As far as i'm concerned, Astrology is not and never was a *science*.William Lilly refers to it as an *art*.The drawing up of a chart does require the application of some science (not rocket science! but not a *piece of cake* either!)..As much of astrology involves the skill of integrating and interpreting information, often the accuracy of the interpretation depends wholly on the astrologer's ability to do this.
Theres an inherent contradiction in what you are doing here Amzolt:
On the one hand you are claiming to have *disproven* a theory using anecdotal information.A conversation with 2 guys does not constitute the application of scientific principles!
If you really wanted to demonstrate your point, you could have posted the data, written an analysis of the charts and finished up with a *logical* conclusion.(Or allowed we poor deluded mortals to reach our own conclusions.)
You proved my point. A time difference of 3 seconds makes a difference.A time difference of 0.0003 seconds would also make a difference-its just that we arent precise enough in our measurements yet to utilise that information.
I am skeptical of *rectified* charts because their accuracy is solely based on the Astrologer's subjective interpretation of events and the astrological mirrors of those events.The skill of the astrologer becomes even more key. Plenty of room for error there!.
Lillyjgc
waybread
Well-known member
Re: other variables, to amzolt
Just a note about science and statistics.
In science, a "law" is invariably true, such that one countrary incident could disprove it. If we think of the law of gravity as it applies to planet Earth, and Newton was supposedly impressed by apples falling down off the tree; a "law" of gravity could be disproved if we found one instance of apples falling up. Theories are believed to be invariably true statements, but they often involve really complex phenomena (like evolution of plant and animals species) or there is some barrier to proving theories conclusively (like scientist weren't around during the Jurassic). So they are more tentative.
Statisics, on the other hand, works with probabilities. This means that a correlation between two variables can be highly significant, and yet not occur 100% of the time. The correlation between two variables can be significant if it occurs with a frequency demonstrably above the level of random chance.
So, for example, if I say that people with Mercury in Gemini [variable one] score highly on IQ tests [variable 2] then this is a proposition that presumably I could falsify or support by applying a statistical test. It doesn't mean that 100% of people with Mercury in Gemini have to be at the high end of the IQ scale.
Just a note about science and statistics.
In science, a "law" is invariably true, such that one countrary incident could disprove it. If we think of the law of gravity as it applies to planet Earth, and Newton was supposedly impressed by apples falling down off the tree; a "law" of gravity could be disproved if we found one instance of apples falling up. Theories are believed to be invariably true statements, but they often involve really complex phenomena (like evolution of plant and animals species) or there is some barrier to proving theories conclusively (like scientist weren't around during the Jurassic). So they are more tentative.
Statisics, on the other hand, works with probabilities. This means that a correlation between two variables can be highly significant, and yet not occur 100% of the time. The correlation between two variables can be significant if it occurs with a frequency demonstrably above the level of random chance.
So, for example, if I say that people with Mercury in Gemini [variable one] score highly on IQ tests [variable 2] then this is a proposition that presumably I could falsify or support by applying a statistical test. It doesn't mean that 100% of people with Mercury in Gemini have to be at the high end of the IQ scale.
EJ53
Banned
amzolt said:
Yet, we now seem to have a debate Amzolt.........focused on the atomsplitting world of science.
Can we discuss the points I raised earlier now?........Or is the debate confined to what "you know you know"?
Lillyjc said:
Can't apologise too much for my error on that one, Lilly..........Thought I knew what I knew, but I was mistaken
EJ
EJ53
Banned
In his book, The Celestine Prophecy, James Redfield identified four types of "control dramas" used subconsciously by people to steal psychological energy from others. One of these was "The Aloof", of which he said (amongst other things) :-
Perhaps one of the men involved in your research was an "Aloof", Amzolt?.....For example, both men might actually have been on a nudist beach for the first time but one was playing games with you in the hope that you'd ask him follow-up questions to get to the truth.
Perhaps one of the men involved in your research was an "Aloof", Amzolt?.....For example, both men might actually have been on a nudist beach for the first time but one was playing games with you in the hope that you'd ask him follow-up questions to get to the truth.
Last edited:
Frank
Well-known member
Re: other variables, to amzolt
So, you say that events cannot be predicted by using astrology, but you are perfectly comfortable rectifying using events?
Also, since you mention public records, can you point us toward those public references so that we may also examine and judge their accuracy?
Of course, we haven't seen any actual charts yet, so that might be wishful thinking on my part.
If one makes assertions, one should be able to back them up by providing verifiable sources.
So, you say that events cannot be predicted by using astrology, but you are perfectly comfortable rectifying using events?
Also, since you mention public records, can you point us toward those public references so that we may also examine and judge their accuracy?
Of course, we haven't seen any actual charts yet, so that might be wishful thinking on my part.
If one makes assertions, one should be able to back them up by providing verifiable sources.
amzolt
Well-known member
Since so many in this thread have ignored what I actually said and, after repeated attempts to explain, still can't hear what I'm saying, I leave this discussion with but one remark: my original post...
EJ53
Banned
Amzolt said:
And that post says only that "Astrology does not, will not, and never has predicted events".........(with which I agree)
It does not say anywhere that "specific events cannot be predicted"........An assertion you make later in the thread without (imo) any supporting evidence/explanation.....(And with which I strongly disagree).
Last edited:
Frank
Well-known member
No, we've understood precisely what you said and haven't ignored your points - merely questioned them.
Perhaps a bit of clarity on all our parts might have made this a more interesting discussion.
Frank, I have to agree with you. A number of people have tried very hard to clarify the issues, among them Aquarius7000, Tim and Waybread. Waybread's points about laws, theories and statistics, I believe, are especially important when discussing the idea of one "miss" disproving an idea, technique, and so on.
To me the problem originates in defining the ability to predict events as a "theory". By so defining it, we are limited to discussing event prediction within this very confined or limiting definition. We put prediction into a "box".
When scientists set about attempting to prove or disprove things, they have very definite, precise methodology. The moment we talk about "scientific method", we have to be very careful that we adhere *to* the scientific method.
In my opinion, stating that two people are born at the same time, within seconds, then stating that this has been "proved" by rectifying the birth times, throws so many factors into the "equation" that in the end it is very little about science and very much about the "art of astrology", which many of us if not most of us agree can never be precisely defined.
lilllybelle
Well-known member
I didn't read this thread all the way through, so I'm not sure what direction it has taken, but I wanted to say that the first post on this thread was one of the most sensible things I've heard someone say about astrology in a long time. I totally agree with what the poster said.
lilllybelle
Well-known member
I went back and flipped through this thread some and saw that there has been some strong debateing going on. Argh! Please don't ask me to explain or justify my opinion. I don't feel like debating or arguing. I just read something that really reasonated with me. Mama don't want no drama .
.
lillyjgc
Senior Member, Educational board Editor
Lillybelle,
I went back and flipped through this thread some and saw that there has been some strong debateing going on. Argh! Please don't ask me to explain or justify my opinion. I don't feel like debating or arguing. I just read something that really reasonated with me. Mama don't want no drama
There has been strong debating, but also respectful and tolerant.I also suggest that if you want to understand this debate you really do need to read ALL the posts.
Cheers
Lillyjgc
I went back and flipped through this thread some and saw that there has been some strong debateing going on. Argh! Please don't ask me to explain or justify my opinion. I don't feel like debating or arguing. I just read something that really reasonated with me. Mama don't want no drama
There has been strong debating, but also respectful and tolerant.I also suggest that if you want to understand this debate you really do need to read ALL the posts.
Cheers
Lillyjgc
EJ53
Banned
lilllybelle said:
I also agree with what I thought the poster says in his opening thread, Lillybelle.................But strongly disagree with what he later says he means by it.
Apparently, he is claiming that "specific events cannot be predicted" (using astrology or anything else)........whilst I'm of the view that there is plenty of evidence to show they can.
I have my opinion, you have yours, the thread poster has his........ and we need explain and justify that view to no-one but ourselves......unless (like the thread poster) we aim to persuade others that our view is correct.
EJ
Last edited: