h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Cause I feel like it:

1: Yes
2: Yup.
3: Yes, but not in the form most people seem to - not a physical anything. For me Heaven would be total synchronisation with God; Hell complete separation from God.
4: Indifferent.
5: Possible, but I've yet to see a sighting that was confirmed later on as somehting *not* scientificially explainable any other way.
6: Nope.
7: Yes and no. I believe in directed evolution, to put it simply (and slightly wrongly).
8: They'd win me over if they'd figure out what happened in the .0000000...3 seconds before it.
9: Possible to do - whether or not it should be done is another story.
10: Yeah, I've experienced this.
11: ditto
12: Nah.

OK, at the risk of boring the other contributers..(too late! i heard someone scream)
"You accept the possibility of annual variations and similarities between those of the same birth sign yet you rubbish astrology which is the same thing as I see it? "

Well actually,no, i don't see it as the same thing at all! and no i don't find it that local, important, and significant seasonal variations, such as the amount of daylight around during pregnancy/birth could cause variations in peoples personality.
Afer all, it has been proven that brain chemistry *is* different during the long winter months, hence all the recent interest in S.A.D. (seasonal affective disorder). So people born at similar times, will also have gone through key stages of their foetal development at similar times of the year.

This to me is an entirely different thing from saying the layout of the solar system at the moment of birth, is the cause of star-sign differences.. So, no, i don't think that i am contridicting myself at all! Though you obviously think i am

As for Patrick Moore (henceforth refered to as Pazza.. or is that disrespectful?), from comments i have heard him make on the matter, i think he believes that astronomy and astrology are two sides of the same coin. They both concern the same subject matter, but one is based on experimental/theoretical/ observational science, whereas the other is based on superstition, makebelieve (oh dear , i think i heard the sound of gloves coming off..)and tradition. He has knowledge of one side of the coin, so he doesn't need to know much about the other side- it is contradictory to what he knows and believes.

After all, correct me if i'm wrong(i'm sure you will), but at the time astrology was concieved of, humans believed that the stars were very much closer to us than they are. They thought if you built a tower high enough you could touch them, and so on. So one could easily forive them for believing, the whole celestial sphere was influencing them directly. Now we know better, surely?

I've never subscribed to this belief that just because something is old, or came before something else, it therefore has more validity. Like guy falkes night. We do it cause it's traditional, not because there's any real reason to do it.
In a similar vain- yes astronomy came from astrology, and yes astrology is ancient- but that dosn't make it any more likely to be true, or still worth doing.

So even though 'pazza' may not have a great deal of knowledge of astrology, the reason i think he is entitled to dismiss the entire subject without studying it in any great depth, is because he knows, or understands the real roles of the planets and stars in our lives, and when he sees astrology making up reasons for things that he knows the real resons for, it probably galls him somewhat. Well that would be my assumption anyway- shouldn't really talk on somebody elses behalf, so Mr Moore if you reading this.....

I think it's similar to the way some people on this planet still ascribe supernatural causes to solar eclipses. We KNOW exactly what causes solar/lunar eclipses, but some cultures still insist on beliving it's a giant dragon eating the sun, and it's a bad omen, etc, etc...

Er.. in case anyone was wondering.. or cares, that was a (long) reply to Snockerty friddle, a few postings back... i'm going to lie down now.

Most phenomena such as seeing ghosts and UFO's can be reproduced in a laboratory using sound waves and atmospheric pressures ..so no I am a sceptic...on astrology..I don't know until someone proves one way or the other. Most people see horoscopes as fun.I sometimes read mine..why not? If it is good i believe it
If I had a £1 for everytime I'm told I'm psychic..I'd be a rich woman.
But at the end of the day ..does it matter what you believe as long as it harms no one and helps some people? (People often turn to these things when they are unhappy -for support and guidance).
I think those who run these phone lines at high rates are exploiters and they are harmful to people's pockets but not much else.

re the evolution discussion -

"But the actual mutations, and the effects they have, are essentially random. Your comment implied that the mutations themselves are somehow selected to be beneficial, which they couldn't be in a random system - it's just that only the beneficial ones survive."

i don't think its true that only the beneficial ones survive. aren't some of the 'weak' genes kept as recessive genes ? i don't remember the reason, something to do with if the species ends in a blind alley then there is a way out ?

*goes off to look this up*

I stand by every word I wrote in my last posting 154

By natal chart I presume you mean birth chart?
No I don't know how they are constructed , or intrupereted.
However logic, tells me that no matter what charts, or other aids are used
astrology does not work, whether it be predicting the future or any thing
else

has for basing my views on newspaper horoscope, and pop astrology, I never
read them

Yes I have read Michel Gauguelin which research you refer to , and
nothing in it changes my mind in any way

If astrology works why should Patrick moore, Britons top amateur astronomer,
who has spent a life time studying the stars , planets, and other object in
the universe dismiss it.

If some people wish to beleive in astrology that's up to them , i don't

the patrick moore argument reminds me of medical specialists dismissing something like herbal medicine out of hand. i always find this quite weird, but also funny. the idea that because you are a specialist in one area makes you an expert about another.

most medical specialists who dismiss herbal medicine are actually extremely ignorant about what it is and are themselves acting out of *superstition*

unless someone actually knows what what astrology is and how it claims it works, then that person isn't in a postition to criticise it. dismissing something you when you don't know what it is isn't logic, its superstition.

Saturnine, can you tell me does that mean you are walking in or walking out ? i haven't been able to tell when people are using



kea.

I do not pretend to know exactly how astrology works , but my own common sense tells me that is does not

Astrology Is superstitious nonsence, which belongs to the past ,
But has i said in my last posting if people want to beleive in astrology thats up to them.
, i dont
Has for your reference to herbal medicine to day many doctors do use it. it works, which is more than can be said for astrology

Kea, it's common around these parts to use as a bookmark, to remind you how far down a thread you've read without having to post anything.

P.J.L., it all depends on how you define "Astrology"... See my post #110...

thanks Peet i'd been wondering how to do that myself.

"Has for your reference to herbal medicine to day many doctors do use it. it works, which is more than can be said for astrology"

sure there are doctors using herbal medicine. i'm referring to the ones who don't, who don't know anything about it, but still dismiss it as useless. this is based on ignorance and their belief system. i.e. superstition

i don't know about medical practitioners, but certainly there are registered therapists who use astrology.

my point still stands - if someone is ignorant about how something works then it lessens the validity of their criticism of that thing.

Rather than looking for proof that astrology does work, has anyone proven that astrology *doesn't* work in a test that wouldn't get laughed at by the astrologers?

Would the astrologers pay any attention to such a proof? For astrology to be remotely acceptable there has to be either conclusive proof that it works (there isn't), or a plausible causal mechanism (there isn't).

Noggin

MaW

Perhaps a confession is in order here.
It has been clear from the beginning that there are some very different definitions of what astrology is and is not. Please forgive me for taking such amusement from the misunderstandings that were always going to happen. If the question was 'Do you believe in astrology as defined by the tabloid press or sensationalist publishers?' my answer would be simply no. I would also agree completely that you do have a choice and do not have to believe, not even in a more accurate definition.

What keeps me reading and contributing to this thread is not an interest in astrology or a need to defend it, having survived as long as it has I think it can stand or fall without any help from me. What fascinates me about the whole discussion are the methods used to prove or disprove the validity of anything controversial enough to start such a discussion.

How unscientific is it possible to be in the name of science? Where exactly do 'observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena' come into the discussion?

Can you really disprove a theory by sticking your fingers in your ears and quoting Patrick Moore?

If you do not observe and identify a phenomena, what are you going to base your description on?
'Theoretical explanation' is a way forward but dismissal of a theoretical explanation does not disprove the phenomena. Neither does blanket denial of its existence.

If you want to use science to prove or disprove anything then your methods must themselves stand up to scientific investigation. If you want to use facts you have to use the correct or relevant ones. The only fact concerning the physical properties of stars, their distance from Earth and whatever ancient people believed about them that is going to further advance this discussion is the fact that they play no part in astrology.

TSF

Um, I always find it funny that people don't like to use herbal medicines... cause that's where most medications are derived, anyway. Aspirin is nothing more than white birch root (or is it willow root? I forget) in a purified form.

Seems a bit blind to me.

I just read my stars in the paper (havent done so in ages), and it starts...

"We regret to inform you that, due to an economy measure, your zodiac sign has been cancelled. Cancerians from now on, must share their predictions with leos...."

Isn't this a good enough reason to not believe in astrology? How can they cancel a zodiac sign aint it something to do with the sky??