The clockwork of Astrology

david starling

Well-known member
Fortunately, the ability to start a fire using a spinning stick of wood to create enough heat to ignite the tinder didn't have to wait until modern physics could explain the coefficient of friction.
 

waybread

Well-known member
Skeptics don't pursue astrology because they think its waste of time, waybread you pursue astrology despite agreeing that its waste of time (by which I mean that it is an objective phenomenon). I however pursue it (like most others, practitioners or not) because I do think it is an objective phenomenon, so there lie our differences (of ''allegiance'').

Don't lie about what I think. Where did I say it's a "waste of time"? Go find my posts where you could quote me on this. If you have questions about why I do astrology despite maintaining some healthy skepticism about it, just ask.

Frankly, I find it fascinating, and learned after reading charts for people on-line that I have some aptitude for it. I wouldn't be bothered if astrology could be proved to be bogus. Obviously, you would be mightily bothered.

I'm now well over 13,000 posts on this forum plus thousands at Astrodienst and a bunch at Skyscript. Why would I waste my time on astrology if I thought about it as you fabricate? Obviously you don't understand where I'm coming from and that unsettles you to the point of having to lob insults, in default of rational engagement.

Certainly a huge amount of astrology is objective. But its underlying practice occurs in the mind of the astrologer engaging in a form of graphic communication called a horoscope.

That should go without saying for you.

BTW, I read charts for people from Muslim countries and India with some regularity-- sometimes Indians actually want a western chart reading. You might spend more time perusing the different threads on this forum.

Petosiris, I am sorry that you find me so threatening.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Imagine trying to come up with fancy methods to get more queries correct with shotgunning. I don't see why astrology should not degenerate into that if there is no objectivity in it.

Who says there's no objectivity to it? Just not the sort of objectivity that you like, apparently.

Who is "shotgunning"? What do you mean by that? If you believe yourself to be objective, then you don't have to write in metaphors.

Do not confuse "objective" with "deterministic" or "fatalistic." Do not confuse objectivity with linear causality. Start thinking about complex systems and models, and how they operate.
 

waybread

Well-known member
There is something sinister in the way Cornelius sells full subjectivity under the guise of something magical/literature/divination. This leads to so much confusion because most people think he simply means replacement by another mechanism of synchronicity (see his podcast with Chris Brennan).

I will have it in mind that you understand him correct the next time you give me some advice though. I am keen on building a scientific system rather than a mentalist one.

I have yet to see you try to build a system that is remotely scientific. To understand science, go chat with the faculty in your nearest university astronomy department or observatory.

Ptolemy and Aristotle are not scientific in today's terms. Neither is Copernicus or Galileo. Science is heavily based upon experimentation, observation, measurement, and statistics. Think of those people as pre-scientists or proto-scientists.

I've pointed out a number of times that objectivity is not the same as science. History is one of the humanities, yet historians are in the business of learning and publishing facts, for example. Or think about a court of law, where attorneys try to extablish the precise facts of the case.

I don't think astrology is a form of divination. I've explained what I think it is. I merely pointed out your mis-reading of Geoffrey Cornelius.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
No, no, and no.

Are you merely trying to be annoying, or do you have actual rational arguments to make? I suspect the former.

Suppose I was a skeptic and I argued that astrology ''worked'' (because it does according to the subjects) based on these psychological mechanisms. How would you reply?
 
Top