Astrology doesn't work
Posted 18 September 2003 - 09:57 PM
The article gives a more balanced view but still claims that astrology was debunked. To me that makes it seem more likely that this claim comes from the researcher involved but I could be wrong because it may be this other writer of the articles bias again. We either have 2 biased articles that don't speak for the scientists involved or a experiment that aparently was not very objective by jumping to such conclusions while we don't have the proper information to question the credibility of this study. Are there any skeptics here who stand by this study with the information we have now about it?
Posted 19 September 2003 - 01:12 AM
Why in the hell should I come up with evidence? If someone need to disproove, it is their onus to find evidence why it is not working! It is my factual evidence that it works fine, and yes, there are rooms for errors as in any scientific cause! We can believe what we need to, or want to, life is simple and plain. This is not a BAD_WORD off comment from me. I am a person who didn't have enough belief in the science called astrology, but life makes you believe! The more you tend to disproove, the more life's uncertainities wrap you tight. Astrology, afterall, is a sign board, not the actual happennings.
Posted 20 September 2003 - 06:07 AM
So you do have evidence, but you won’t tell us what it is?
I don’t know what you’re getting at here, but I can tell you with all the certainty in the world that life has not made me believe in astrology. Just the opposite, really. And while there are many things that I don’t know, I would not say that I am "wrapped in uncertainties."
Posted 20 September 2003 - 06:23 AM
I don't understand what you think the problem is. Astrology makes certain claims about itself. These scientists tested the claims, and found them to be false. They therefore concluded that astrology was not a valid process. What were they supposed to say? "A two-decade, two-thousand person study failed to turn up any evidence for astrology, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong"? Unless you can come up for an interpretation of this data other than "astrology has been debunked," I hardly think it's fair to criticize them for reporting their research in those terms.
Posted 20 September 2003 - 07:10 AM
whatever, I still believe Astrology if interpreted properly is science at it's best. Keep Smiling Gregory
Posted 20 September 2003 - 07:48 AM
In short, I'm not claiming that it's false; I'm just saying that I don't have any reason to believe that it's true.
Posted 20 September 2003 - 12:05 PM
How do we know they tested these claims properly? When a experiment is done it's credibility and methods need to be analyzed before being accepted but there in very little information about this particular study but I understand why disbelievers may want to accept it without questioning it. How do we know that their methods of testing and gathering data were inline with the claims made by astrology? We don't since there is not much information on this. If this was a study that turned up results for the paranormal skeptics would demand all the data and analyze it down to the last detail whether or not if there are any flaws. Why should I consider interpreting the seemingly biased conclusions when we have insuficient information about the credibility of this test? Why should this be accepted when we only have a short article on it and what happened to the need for replication?
Posted 20 September 2003 - 12:45 PM
You shouldn't assume that this experiment is valid based on a news article; I never said you should, but I apologize if I gave that impression. On the other hand, you shouldn't accuse the experimenters of bias based on a news article, either.
I do not know what, if anything, happened to the need for replication.
Posted 28 September 2003 - 11:49 AM
It seems to be objective, not saying that astrology is impossible, but that there is no valid reason to believe that it is effective.
Posted 10 October 2003 - 02:44 AM
I was mylself not inclined to believe in astrology. My father always used to tell me that astrology is not the end by itself. It is a guide post. When we see the times are good, well, little effort could do wonders. But if the time is bad, we need to put in extra effort.
I am not going to put in my experience here since the way western astrology is interpreted is very different than the Indian ways, so that means I need to be an expert in explaining all the terms and making it understandable to GV friend. As of now, I am not that good in making things understandable. So that means, I still believes in Astrology and still consideres it a science!
Posted 10 October 2003 - 10:51 AM
But astrology is older than most advanced mathematics. At the very least it must be older than calculus, since Newton is quotes as believing in it.
Posted 10 October 2003 - 11:17 AM
Posted 10 October 2003 - 09:39 PM
Mostly people dont TRUST astrology because it is misinterpreted by people who wants to HEAR the good things, want to make quick bucks. The same is the case with any esoteric stuff. Forget GV and get into any other "ghost" sites, and you will know what I mean.
Basucally people wanna hear what they wanna hear, and do what they wanna do. But then, where is the morals? where is the ethics?
Posted 11 October 2003 - 01:07 AM
We all know tides are influenced by the moon, so obviously the larger planets have bigger influence. This surely affect our body rythms, thought process, without doubt. Astrology can never be attributed wrong, but the human factor in deriving the process can be.
Posted 11 October 2003 - 04:52 AM
So I've heard. I have never, however, heard convincing evidence of this.
I distrust astrology because I've seen no convincing evidence that it works and quite a bit of evidence that it doesn't. I can't speak for most people, though.
I have no idea what this has to do with astrology.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users