From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: Dave
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:03:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.180416.4497@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, stacey@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu (Stacey B. Martin) writes...
>This whole argument with "Dave and the Sceptics" is going nowhere fast,
>not that I don't enjoy an intelligent argument. (I liked Eric's very much).
                                                          ^^^^^^
(Sniff) I'm hurt.

>And, more importantly, I think, is that Dave sees the universe as
>either/or. Astrology has never been either/or, and the same goes for
>the Universe. It would be terrific if life ran that way, but it doesn't.
>And it never will, no matter how hard you try and make it.

What do you mean, exactly, the universe is not either/or?  Are you saying
nothing can be known?

What I am saying is that either the angles of the planets affects human
personality and life events or they don't.  I have the impression most
astrologers feel this "either/or" has the unequivocal answer "yes, the angles
of the planets affect human personality and life events". 

Now I say, ok.  Either it is possible to determine whether the angles of the
planets affect human personality and life events or it is not.  It is clear
that this is independent of the first dichotomy: they might affect us and
we could not determine it, and so on.

To this dichotomy, what I have gotten out the recent discussion is that most
astrologers (to the extent the largely amateur astrologers here are
representitive) would say "no, it is not possible to determine that."

Which seems to make belief in astrology a matter of faith or conviction.  It
also makes it unclear how the interpretation of planetary influences could be
arrived at if it is not possible to determine whether they exist at all.

>I've been sitting here thinking about Dave's remarks on psychology and
>astrology, and I think, what the fuck do you do about people like
>Liz Greene, who's a Jungian analyst and an astrologer, and uses astrology
>to help her patients? And she's not the only psychologist/therapist/analyst
>who "believes blindly." Hell, she even has a school in London where she
>teaches others to do the same.

What do I do about it?  Well, I go back to what I said before: she is using
psychology with random elements thrown in.  If the random elements help her
form creative approaches, then fine.  But I also say again: either the planets
have something to do with whatever success she has or they don't.  I suppose
it would be easy to test.  Give her a group of patients, split them into
two groups, and give her false birth data for one and accurate birth data for
the other.  With strict enough controls, it would be possible to see whether
the stars are actually important.  But oh, I know, why should she prove to
_me_ or anyone else who doubts, since she and her patients already _know_ it
is effective without checking.

>The most amusing thing of all, is (picture
>this) she wouldn't even have to let a patient know how she got a grip
>on his problem - how she could see the symbols and myths dominant in
>his psyche by looking at a damned circle full of lines and weird squiggles.
>This really tickles me. 

If someone were rolling dice to determine what advice to give me in professional
counseling, I'd be pretty upset if they didn't tell me.  Although I suspect most
her clientele is not exactly the most skeptical to begin with.  Hence it may
well be akin to faith healing or a placebo effect.

>I guess I'm calling for a truce, so we can talk astrology again. At least
>for a day or two. :-)

You know, it _is_ possible to carry on more than one thread.  Unless everyone
is so enthralled by my scintillating argumentation that they are held
speechless...NOT!  Except in the rarest of cases where something truly
outlandish is said, I do not snipe at threads discussing the details and actual
practice of astrology


Dave