From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Doubters Of Astrology
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 02:24:07 GMT

crawdad@fncent (Matt Crawford) writes:
>Eric C. S. Dynamic makes a bold, but unscientific proposal to

Dude - how you feel about your spouse or lover is "unscientific", let's can the
rhetoric, okay? We aren't in your mental world with this stuff.

>establish some of his claims.  I would like to offer what I think is
>a minimal modification to his offer, in the interests of making the
>test more valid.  It would require the service of a neutral
>intermediary.  I'd willingly serve, but I may not be acceptable to
>Eric.  No matter, I'm sure one could be found.

> My suggestion:
> <modify the test beyond recognition in comparison with what ecsd proposed>

There's no need for an intermediary; if my respondent sees I am falsifying
anything they can say so. Regarding the blindness, why waste my time?
I proposed a very straightforward exchange. Take it or leave it. I'm
prepared to deal with the outcome - you don't seem satisfied. That's not
*my* problem. I've already tried to make plain what I try to do in what I do.
You keep seeming to want to stack the deck - this is *not* a linear, rational
process. You seem unable to understand this.

>Eric says that he wants some amount of 2-way communication in order
>to reach his conclusions.  This suggests to me thatthere may be a
>whole lot less astrology involved than simple psychology.  Maybe Eric
>can pose the bulk of his additional questions in advance?  The

I would not know what to ask without seeing the chart. Astrology *is*
archetypal psychology; what people have trouble with is that I could
know anything about the person just by knowing their birth info.
And that's *all* I want to demonstrate, whoo-eee-ooo. Puts a crack
in your world view - then let the grass grow on your time.

>answers would, of course, have to be filtered to remove any
>revelations of approximate birthdate.  In any case, to me the crux of
>the test is in the differences in the readings based upon different
>time and date of birth, not upon the accurate guesses that can be
>made after a lengthy interview.

Yeah, and to me the crux of it is to use it for something useful -
that's what the interview process does. This will take a fair number
of exchanges. The first need merely include the birth info, and the
respondent will indicate the number of my 'hits'. And you-all will
watch the thing transact. What I know in advance will show up very
clearly; and what I do with the information is, to me, far more
important thatn *how* I obtain it.

I know that I am 'muddy' with it - but I think clear enough to do a
fair job. I already said I would stack *my* deck by choosing charts
that are easier to work with. If the analogy is, can I levitate a fork -
what's it to you what fork? If I do it at all, well *weird* and get a life.
The respondent(s) will be writing here too, you know - get a grip.
I guess I'd ask you to get out of heckle mode while it's going on, too -
polite questions, yeah - trying to stick your nose in the flow, no.

>Naturally, the skeptical among us would like to see such a test made
>with a large sample of subjetcs, but there must be a limit to Eric's
>available time and patience.

As I say, one or two working cases should show that further interest is
merited.

>How about it, Eric?  Is a semi-controlled experiment acceptable?
>
>				Matt Crawford

The way I proposed it. This process is not amenable to control, sweetheart -
sorry. You poor linear thing you.

Like I said - go look at the original offer; that's my offer. I'm satisfied
it will educate some of the left-brained faithful.

Oh, if I do have to get off the net, I will arrange with the respondent(s)
to continue through the mail (post my side of it too).
And trust they will cooperate honestly.

The offer stands as originally made.
-ecsd