Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Troy

There Are Many Opinions and Then There is Science

Recommended Posts

@Delano you should tell us what you think about the stuff you share; that would be interesting.

 

It is hard to take a conversation between a comedian and an "alleged" sexual predator very seriously ;-) 

 

When it comes to Astrology… there’s a lot of believers…  but then there’s Science!!

 

That is the way the podcast I referenced would open the segment on Astrology if they did one.  I checked but did not see one.

 

Astrology has no foundation in science, but if it gives people a way to make sense of and cope in our consumer driven greedy little world of ours, who am I to take that away from them?  It I take Astrology away from its adherents what would I give them to replace it ... religion?

 

So while the video clip ended with both men agreeing that astrology was "bullshit," I won't go that far because, like religion, it helps some people.  

 

The only time I would have a problem with Astrology is if they tried to teach it in school to my kids, made it part of our law, or in anyway forced me to even acknowledge it. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy you took a class in astrology, would you say it's bs. 

Here are my interests from my profile. 

 

Astrology Tarot Numbers .
I like to think, i think, about thinking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Delano given a choice man I'd come down on the side of science.  Having taken a course in Astrology, I'm probably better suited to make an assessment than the comic or degenerate.

 

There are a lot of things, I suspect are true, that science cannot prove or disprove.  As I said, there is more to astrology than "What's your sign baby?" So, I'd stop short of calling it BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are an engineer and tiu studied astrology. So are you deferring to scientists (that haven't studied astrology) over your experience? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I studied science too. Joe and Neil's video had no impact on my worldview, though they more or less support what I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even science is an opinion.  That is until there's consensus through experimentation that result in the same outcome for everyone who uses the prescribed method.  Unfortunately, that still doesn't make it gospel as many theoretical scientists are learning today.  While  repeating the same method may get the same outcome but when someone else comes along using a different method and gets yet another outcome we're left with more questions.

 

Any way the scientific method is still young (17th century) and it rest on the fact that we have is agreement since we're taught not question authority.  I imagine if civilization last another millennia - they are going to look back at us like we're barbarians. 
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy

Thanks, I'll check it out.


I don't think the ORIGINAL astrology as taught and practiced by ancient cultures was bullshit.
It probably started off as a legitimate and effective science back then similar to psychology and psychiatry in Western culture today. But as is often the case, after Caucasians get ahold of it and corrupt it to the point that it loses it's original meaning and purpose......THEN it becomes a mass of confusion and lies that is almost unrecognizable to it's original form.

Just look at Yoga........
Originally it was designed as a way for people to become spiritually enlightened and open up certain chakra points, but after Caucasians got ahold of it and brought it to the West.....now it's a way for middle aged White women to maintain their flexibility for sexual activity, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes visionaries are indeed important @Delano.

 

Del right at this instant I'm watching a TV series calked The Orville. It is like Star Trek, but better. At any rate, if you can watch season 2 episode 5 watch it deals with Astrology.

 

3 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

I imagine if civilization last another millennia - they are going to look back at us like we're barbarians. 

 

Well assuming the planet can still suport human life, I hope so I cause we seem pretty barbaric by my recogning right now.

 

@Mel Hopkins what opinions does science hold?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Troy said:

 what opinions does science hold?

 

@Troy Any observation of the universe or species that reside within that hasn’t been tested is an opinion.  Some don’t even rise to the level of hypothesis - but politics allows some opinions to enter mainstream - while actual theories are sidelined.  ( i’m thinking of two separate documentaries one about evolution and the other about mathematics in reference to that last statement.)

 

For centuries cancer and the various causes were opinions - - Today the opinion (scientific opinion they like to say) is damage to DNA ...Meanwhile over in the DNA lab the current opinion is there are some protein pairings that need to be investigated .   

 

And let’s not forget the opinion held today about the humble origin of the universe. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

...but politics allows some opinions to enter mainstream - while actual theories are sidelined.

 

True, like religion and astrology right?

 

7 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

the opinion held today about the humble origin of the universe. 

 

Yep somethings are untestable would you put astrology in that category?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Troy said:

Yep somethings are untestable would you put astrology in that category?


@Troy , I'd say yes but I don't know enough about astrology to even share an informed opinion. 

But CONSIDER ( etymonline : from Latin considerare "to look at closely, observe," probably literally "to observe the stars," from assimilated form of com "with, together" (see con-) + sidus (genitive sideris) "heavenly body, star, constellation" (see sidereal).Perhaps a metaphor from navigation, but more likely reflecting Roman obsession with divination by astrology.) this, astrology hails from a time of Natural Philosophy - which predates modern science. 

This is one of the reasons why some of the words in our language (latin) are star-based.  I mentioned the scientific method didn't come into existence until the 17th century but  modern humans (i.e. "Africans", kushites,  Aksumites,  Romans, were dabbling in Natural Philosophy long before Anglos took the "scientific" reins.  So, while Astrology isn't recognized today as a hard science maybe that too has to do with politics.

Aside: I did a quick search to see if anyone ever got a PhD in the field of Astrology and it appears "Patrice Guinard was awarded the first PhD in astrology in 1993 from Sorbonne University" Here's some links if anyone wants to do a deep dive

http://cura.free.fr/histo.html

  http://www.astrology-and-science.com/p-guin2.htm

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They award doctorates in religion too, so I'm not surprised, by one being awarded in astrology.  Both religion and astrology are deep subjects and require a lot of knowledge to master.  But complexity does not make something true -- just complex.

 

The second article you posted was interesting and can be summarized with the foloowing quotes

 

Guinard's Thesis Abstract
Patrice Guinard's Manifesto is a statement of 42,000 words based on his 1993 PhD thesis at the Sorbonne, about how astrology provides meaning despite being rejected by educated people, and why it deserves not to be. His central idea is that the planets resonate with our psyche leaving the results in our minds as unspecific symbols and archetypes. So astrology has nothing to do with science or religion or philosophy. It is a psychic phenomenon that has evolved with humanity and should be accepted as part of our nature.

 

A Different Conclusion:

The Manifesto is an example of how wordiness and misdirected scholarship can give a false sense of profundity. It boils down to speculations about astrology that the author says are untestable. These speculations are bolstered by frequent long asides, some insightful, some misguided, some fatally uninformed, and some even self-contradictory. Guinard's position of untestability allows him to safely attack any contrary view, which is most of them. But his claim of untestability is problematic because by definition the situation cannot then be reliably known by anyone. In fact the results of relevant empirical studies have generally contradicted his speculations. Guinard has made a bold attempt to strike a conclusive blow for astrology against science; but his "epic analysis" amounts to no more than a massive exercise in pseudoscience. Neither does Guinard offer any clear remedies for modern astrology's conceptual problems. Astrology surely deserves better than this.

 

The Thesis abstract was worded by the guy who wrote the conclusion so it must be taken with a grain of salt.

 

@Delano, were you aware of Guinard's work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Troy said:

. But his claim of untestability is problematic because by definition the situation cannot then be reliably known by anyone. In fact the results of relevant empirical studies have generally contradicted his speculations.


@Troy the challenge here is the critic is comparing two things, Natural Philosophy vs Modern Science, that are held to different standards.
It's like comparing home birth to hospital births -and then trying to determine why mothers recover faster when having children with only a midwife present or none at all.   (I think that's an accurate analogy lol)

 

29 minutes ago, Troy said:

But complexity does not make something true -


But the same came be said for empirical testing.  "True" in modern science is based on varying levels that we agree upon. And the scale is always sliding.
For example, "smoking kills" but my mother is nearly 80 and is healthy (no lie). She really is AND she goes to the doctor regularly - yet she's been smoking since her early teens.   

Recently, (2015) Mark Zuckerberg awarded Dr. Helen H. Hobbs, a geneticist, the breakthrough award for isolating a gene responsible for low LDL cholesterol found in African-Americans. The finding- could help others who suffer from the alleged heart disease causing high bad LDL... But my point is all you ever hear is African Americans are at the highest risk for heart disease meanwhile there a quite a few of us walking around with a gene that prevents it...

I haven't come across any absolute truth in science yet.

Have you?  

(that's not a challenge - I'm really asking because although I read a lot I know what I don't know)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well science never says something is "absolutely true."  They can have a theory that withstands a century of testing and experimentation.  But the second an observation violates a theory the scientific community discards that old theory and moves on.  

 

Keep in mind that 100% of the people who smoke will not contract cancer.  However we do know that 100% of the people who smoke are at a substantially increased risk of contracting cigarette caused cancer. 30% of all cancers come from smoking.  83% of lung cancers come from smoking. 

 

This is why collecting data, indeed science, is important.  You would not say that because your mother smoked all her life, therefore cigarette smoking poses no risks right?  We also don't know what your mom's lifestyle would have been like if she never smoked (cancer is not the only negative consequence of smoking). We also don't know the consequence her 2nd hand smoking hand on those around her...

 

It is like man made climate change: Science does not say that it is 100% beyond an shadow of a doubt true. What they will say is that the predominance of the evidence makes highly likely.  Much like astrologers and the religious, climate change deniers, are the ones who assert absolutely certainly in their beliefs.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

Here's some links if anyone wants to do a deep dive

BigThanks @Mel Hopkins i read everything on this site that was in English years ago. I always appreciate the look out twin. I miss the absence of your voice but I understand your position becuse it mirrors Cynique mine and al the other silent observers. 

 

I believe the University of Bath briefly had an astrology degree. Which waa actually mkr like a history degree. 

@Troy I am guessing inhad abiyt 80 astrology books and probably read another 80. At one pont I had three Astrology Encyclopaedias. And an astrology book store moved in two blocks from me. I also had three library cards. One was from an esoreeic library. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Delano said:

i read everything on this sute that was in English years ago.

 

@Delano , I figured you had  but maybe not others. 

3 hours ago, Troy said:

Well science never says something is "absolutely true." 


@Troy  exactly,  But Scientific method is fallible.  It doesn't matter to me how many years they stick with a result - methods are faulty or there would never be a reason to discard a result. 

It reminds me of religious folks who say god is unchanging - that's completely ignorant statement ESPECIALLY when you dealing with the INFINITE and unseen.   Which of course, is how I view people who put their faith in modern science too. 

Modern Science is just another crutch to deal with uncertainty. 

Scientific method has value because it forces people to use data to make sense of things...people like absolutes and tangibles but it's still a crutch.   The value however is found  in "conceptualization" or using one's imagination rather than stopping at it's "god's will".   

I recently read a piece on cryptocurrency that mentioned we humans have gone through three stages of organization and explanation so far, -THEISM - HUMANISM- DATAISM...  Astrology relies on all three - planetary gods; human understanding and tracking the movements of the stars relies on data. although I've never heard astrologists claim absolutes except for when they are discussing the movement of the planets constellations et al.  But who knows maybe that's not fixed either...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as astrology there are onky a handful of people that know what they are doing. 

Astrologers have been tested, there have been a few studies and they haven't convinced me. I have missed my prediction about Trump. However I don't think he will finish his term. I think January 2020 will be his watershed moment. 

 

That being said I still have two open predictions for both Troy and Pioneer1. I could be mistaken however I have made some timed predictions for individuals that are documented on Facebook. However i am not practising in a way that even astrologers comprehend. For example i make predictions without using the natal chart. Which except for horary astrology unprecedented as far as i can tell. In addition I haven't come across anyone that can create an astrology chart from a word or a number. But perhaps I am deluded. Time will tell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Delano said:

How do you measure : consciousness ; love; beauty or poetry ?

 


They all can be measured, but like most abstract concepts they have to be measured by the INDIVIDUAL.

A person knows when they are more conscious NOW than when they 3 years ago.
A person can definitely tell if a red dress on their spouse makes them more beautiful TO THEM than a green dress.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...