From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Fwd: Astrology: Scientific Research (Was Re: Doubters Of Astrology)
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 10:14:30 GMT

kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:

>ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>>bluelobster+@CMU.EDU (David O Hunt) writes:
>>>From: lmpm@teal.csn.org (L. M. P. McPherson)
>>>Subject: Astrology: Scientific Research (Was Re: Doubters Of Astrology)
>>>[[ very LONG post about astrological research, with a long list of
>>>   citations. Indicating that postive correlations have been found
>>>   between astronomical events and human characteristics and other
>>>   physical phenomena ]]

>Jan Willem Nienhuys has already corrected the rumors spread by McPherson,
>so this is irrelevant.  Astrology still has neither a theory nor evidence.

Yeah? So post that here. (proof cited, not offered; case closed, I-have-spoken)
I say it has a theory, and that you don't know what that is. If you're so
knowledgeable about the subject's failure, then expound upon it - what were
the claims, what was the refutation? A few more watthours from your brain
might make you look pretty cool - say, 0.1 times as much time as I am
spending in defense.

My error not to have read the chart for a direct poster who would begin to
implement the exchange which would demonstrate what I wish to demonstrate.
Karleen is up next. Every second I spend on this is time away from finishing
her chart - and this cuts me. I'd like a social life too - so I'll have to
let the children run around sticking their tongues out, I suppose, if I've
any wisdom to me. I'll think about it.

> 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.

1) I have proven my beliefs to my self.
2) This skeptic says I'm wrong.
3) Then he hasn't my internal experience.
4) What could have induced him to dispute my experience?
  a) He is closed-minded.
  b) He doesn't know anything about the subject.
  c) He has a reaction pattern in which he ridicules what he doesn't believe.
  d) He only wants to have an argument.
  e) He is afraid of the intellectual consequences for his present worldview.
  f) He is afraid of what his family, friends and neighbors will think.
  g) He is caught in White-Western eschewal of things labeled 'occult'. (e,f)
  h) He thinks science accounts for human experience. Or has even a CLUE.
  i) He really doesn't give a damn, he holds his opinion
	 "because he feels like it."
  j) He refuses existing dissonant information.
5) So I tolerate his ignorant abuse while I get on with my own life.
  a) And I remain patient while he remains disinvested. $$ NOT ANY MORE $$
  b) And I tolerate watching him use the same hand-waving techniques
	 he claims I do. $$ NOT ANY MORE $$
  c) And I remain patient while watching him propose tests he mistakenly
	 assumes will validate the subject - a subject he knows nothing about.
  d) And I remain patient while he denies he has any emotional stake in the
	 outcome. $$ NOT ANY MORE $$

I agree, original-4b is pretty handy. Especially when the information is freely
available to those with the interest to pursue it.
Those who don't, still enjoy the freedom to harrass, but not without being
called down for it, which I have done earlier.

Have a nice day.
-ecsd
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic