From: johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com ("Johnson")
Subject: Re: Fwd: Astrology: Scientific Research (Was Re: Doubters Of Astrology)
Reply-To: johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Wireless Enterprises, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 17:17:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.174014.7047@rhrk.uni-kl.de>, kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
=)
=)My anti-skeptic model applies again.  (I used it in another thread already.)
=)The way Eric and others appear to be thinking:
=)
=) 1) I am right.
=) 2) This skeptic says I'm wrong.
=) 3) Then he must be wrong.
=) 4) What could have induced him to say wrong things?
=)   a) He is closed-minded.
=)   b) He doesn't know anything about the subject.
=)   c) He is part of a conspiracy to hide the truth.
=)   d) In reality he shares my opinion, but peer pressure makes him oppose.
=)   e) Huuii, look at his chart!  (astrologers only)
=)   f) He only wants to have an argument.
=)   g) He is caught in reductionist/rationalist/positivist/... thinking.
=)   h) He thinks science has found everything there is to find.
=)   etc.  (Who knows more?)
=) 5) So I don't have to listen to him.
=)
Well, we can develop from this an anti-anti-skeptic model as well.

1)  I am right.
2)  The anti-skeptic says I'm wrong.
3)  Then he must be wrong.
4)  What could have induced him to say wrong things?
  a) He is self-deluded.
  b) He doesn't understand what I know to be reality.
  c) He is trying to perpetuate a false doctrine for his own purposes.
  d) Deep down, he knows I'm right, but can't handle reality.
  e) He is clearly schizophrenic.
  f) He only wants to have an argument.
  g) He is caught in self-supporting logic.
  h) He won't admit that science is the only real system of logic.
  etc.
5)  So I don't have to listen to him.

I'm still following this thread because it is potentially interesting,
but so far there seems to be a lot more heat than light.  Personal and
psychological attacks do nothing to prove or disprove a point of view.
In particular, a viewpoint is not proven by the suggestion that an
opposing viewpoint may be faulty.  So far, Eric has offered to
demonstrate astrology, but only on his own terms, which several
posters consider subjective.  In turn, his detractors (or detractors
of astrology in general) try to prove their point using the basic
assumption that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid or self-
deluded.  In my mind, the flavor of the discussion or attack makes
it fairly clear who is discussing for the purpose of learning versus
who is discussing for the purpose of perpetuating a preselected
viewpoint--and the latter types seem to make up most of the volume
in this thread.  Any suggestions?
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Johnson"                              | Don't say words you're gonna regret|
| johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com | Don't let fire rush to your head   |
|                                        |        -- The Alan Parsons Project |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  If I spoke for Motorola, things would be a lot different around here!      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+