Astrology and Psychics

Off Topic
61

[quote]4est wrote:
I used to be skeptical… but then I had an astrological chart made. A true chart is based off your birth minute and the lattitude and longitude of your birthplace. I was astounded. The results were at least 95% in describing who I am. This was a report about a dozen pages long too.

…[/quote]

It probably is 95% accurate for anyone near your age.

People are 95% the same, 5% different.

They fooled you and entertained you, the same as a magician. It sounds like you enjoyed it. That is cool.

If their supposed powers were real it would be 100% accurate.

62

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It probably is 95% accurate for anyone near your age.[/quote]

Don’t forget, he also gave his place of birth. And if he supplied his name as well, then all bets are off.

63

[quote]4est wrote:

To claim there is no such thing as phychic abilities is to claim we fully understand all concepts of the mind/spirit.[/quote]

Claiming psychic abilities are bullshit means that we know that what psychics do can’t violate laws of physics. I’m not sure on your exact definition of spirit, but I guess that’s your “link” from the psychic to their subject. In that case, its quite obvious that there is no such thing. It can’t be proven that such a thing exists yet people still want to believe it.

It’s ridiculous that somehow your geographical location and minute of birth affects your life events.
Don’t you think that its possible that your astrological chart could be vague enough generalize everybody? Astrologers are good at examining the human condition and basically saying things that can happen to anyone.

And I bet there are people that go to the astrologers and due to sheer luck and probability have a description that fits them to a T. Of course, those are the ones that will spread the word about how accurate psychic and astrological abilities are.

None of this stuff can be proven, the only basis for the “legitimacy” of psychics/astrology is the results that you get after seeing them, not anything that involves the process.

64

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You are correct that much of what we once thought was the “will of the gods” is actually firmly rooted in science and understandable physical laws. You should apply that same logic to the belief in psychics or astrology.

To the extent we find there to be any merit in astrology, we will also find that it is imprecise. I am open to the idea that there may be some levels of perception to which only certain individuals have access. I do not, however, entertain the notion that configurations of distant stars influence our behavior or personality in any way.
[/quote]
Here is my problem with the claims of psychics and astrologists. In dealing with pure science it is the intent of the “observer” to lay, matter of factly, all evidience and ensure a reapeatable process to the subsequent observers. It does not attempt to prove or disprove, rather it allows the observers to make inferential observations that may or may not be apparent to other observers. These observations will undoubtedly be disputed as is what is expected in any scientific endeavor. If you were to ask any two psychics or astrologists the same question you would get two different results that are both equally not verifiable. And often such vague and ambiguous language is used by these mystics that the results could apply to any number of circumstances. There is no real test to determine weather psychic abilities exist or not. Kind of like the “God” question. You either choose to beleive or not.

65

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Kind of like the “God” question. You either choose to beleive or not.[/quote]

Well, a “true” psychic would be able to reproduce her results over and over again. If her “powers” only amounted to unverifiable, ambiguous statements, then those would, by default, be worthless. After all, they’d be indistinguishable from, say, cold-reading.

A psychic wouldn’t even need to be able to give extremely detailed readings, as long as her level of accuracy was outside the range of pure luck. For example: If you gave me the birth date, etc, etc, of someone, and I was able to tell you the color of the hair of who they were going to marry, AND I turned out to be correct, that might seem impressive. But realistically, there are only three common hair colors (blonde, brunette, red) that people sometimes confuse with each other (light brown is considered by some to be dirty blonde). So to make this scientific, We’d make a spectrum of hair colors. If I could only identify three colors, then we would have to assign weights to each part of the spectrum, with the weights being heaviest at the colors closest to my terminology. Dirty blonde, for example, would have a low weight compared to, say, platinum or very yellow blonde. If I were to say blonde, and the woman turned out to be a dirty-blonde, then I’d actually have a 2 out of 3 shot of getting it right… I probably could’ve said brunette, and gotten away with it. If I say “redhead,” and the woman has reddish tinges to her predominantly brown hair, again, I had a 2 out of 3 shot. If I say “red” and she had truly red hair, then I had a 1 out of three shot. I don’t have any numbers in front of me, but I’d say that a large number of people fall in between hair colors, so I’d have to have a rate of accuracy significantly above 2/3 (approximate).

Of course, this example doesn’t take into account that people can change hair color and that there might be a correlation between a person’s hair color and the hair color of the mate they will choose. But the main point is that scientific tests can be done if one pays proper attention to detail.

66

Here you go:

http://www.sylvia.org/home/index.cfm

She has helped me a lot. Other people have their opinions and beliefs though. But it’s worth a shot if your interested.

67

[quote]provy07 wrote:
Here you go:

http://www.sylvia.org/home/index.cfm

She has helped me a lot. Other people have their opinions and beliefs though. But it’s worth a shot if your interested.[/quote]

Science is not an opinion or belief system .

Just in case you want to move into the year 2005 with the rest of us here are some links that will help you develop a “bullshit detector” that will work on all kinds of stuff; like psycics, astrology, perpetual motion machines, crystal power, and other real life shams.

www.banachek.org/banachekmain..htm

www.csicop.org/

good luck.

And if you just can’t kick the astrology habit let me know I offer personalized horoscopes, maps to atlantis, and seances at a discount for T-Nation members.

68

this thread reminds of the homeopathy one. some of you guys’ll remember. it’s the one where i argued for homeopathy to the best of my abilities and found out that i was still wrong.

guys, keep it coming. maybe somebody reading will wonder why astrology and psychics are fake and learn from it.

BTW, why is it that females are the main driving forces behind astrology and psychics?

69

Want to see how legitimate astrology is? If you can, get access to some astronomy software (any student can get free academic versions) and use it to see where the sun, planets etc were on the date of your birth.

You’ll find that the star maps astrology uses are a few thousand years out of date, and your sign isn’t really your sign. Funny how astologers can make all these fancy charts, but don’t know how to look at the sky.

Astrology isn’t even pseudoscience, it’s just plain old BS. But make enough vaguely worded predictions and you’ll be kinda right enough often enough to fool the credulous.

70

[quote]swiperfox wrote:
I dunno about astrology, but I do believe some people have extra-sensory perception. I don’t, however, think it is very controllable, and therefore all telephone psychics are bs. I’ve seen my mom tell strangers she meets details about their life and what will happen to them in the next few months within less than 60 seconds of meeting them) more times than can be explained by chance. She never knows why she says it either, just feels compelled to (she sells insurance, not psychic crap). When I was younger, I used to have dreams of places I didn’t know I would visit detailed to the very cracks in the sidewalks I would come across. Hasn’t happened since adolescence though, and I don’t expect anyone to believe me.[/quote]

I agree. I do think this is a natural, rather than “supernatural” human tendency (that could be explained scientifically, just has not at this point) that some people supress more than others.

As for astrology, I find it interesting in the sense of it being a complete system, but am not convinced it is predictive. Although I fit my own sun sign and other panetary attributes perfectly (Sun, Mercury and Venus in Scorpio, Moon and Rising in Sagittarius). So while I relate very much with the Scorpionic ideal I suspect if I were born in any other month I still would feel like a Scorpio.

71

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Please, courses in critical thinking, LOL! Well if you don’t see the humor in that…Like you can teach someone to think, once you teach someone to think their thought are no longer their own.

You obviously don’t understand the difference between being taught HOW to think and being taught WHAT to think. One of the most important gifts a teacher can give his or her students is the ability to do more than just memorize material, although that does have its place. He or she can teach students to reason and think about the world around them; whether it be to think about politics, mathematics, art, or the shortest route to work in the morning.

Everyone can learn to think more critically and with greater precision, without sacrificing their individuality. To the extent that truths can be shown objectively, a truly rational person must concede some points, true, which might be overwhelming for some who wish to cling to certain notions.

But to repeat, everyone can learn to think better.

But hey, if you insist, I’ll list you as an exception to that rule. Everyone in the world can learn to think better. Except for Gregus. This is as good as he’s going to get.[/quote]

You see right there you’re making personal attacks. You know why? Because you’re incapable of thinking objectively. Your emotions overtook you. In essence yes, everyone can learn to think more critically, be better and more rational. Did your courses in critical thinking let you see that no where in what i wrote did i say that’s not true? My point was this:

Much like you or i can learn to play basketball, we can always improve our game. We can train, practice do drills and get much better. But no matter how good we get we’ll never be as good as the natural who can dunk the ball his first time out on the court.

Same goes for mentalities, some are critical thikers and philosophers naturally. They’re not understood by most people but their critical thinking is God given. In essence a true philospher can not study philosophy. One a philosopher studies philosophy of others his or her ideas and patterns of thinking are already influnced with a certain “style” and are no longer pure.

Now taking critical thinking classes is great, yes it will elevate the average (by average I’m not referring to you or anyone here or demeaning anyone, so forgive me if it’s the worng choice of words, so don’t shut down) to a higher level but they will never be able to compete with a natural who does not have to study someone elses design on how to see, process and undestand information. This is what i was saying.

And BTW: I not saying this because i have some gift, or a superiority complex, i don’t. Im average in intelligence and some would say slightly below. My education is subpar and views limited. So don’t let my opinion infalme you into unprovoked attacks. It’s not my intention to make anyone feel bad, but sometimes speaking what you think will carry they responsibility of taking heat from those whom i may have offended. For that i apologise.

72

Thank you, you too. Sorry for infaming you .

73

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Things they told me and my family about the past proved their gifts, they spoke in specifics and not in generalities.

They predicted your past? It’s a miracle.
[/quote]

Listen, the psychic in question was a very special person. Very religious. She explained how it works and from what i gathered it’s not powers. It’s not controllable and it just happens when she would open up to it. It was not something she could force or manipulate, it’s kind of like if you have the ear to listen to it and hear it. I would appreciate if did not mock this as she was a very good person that dedicated her life to being a nurse and caring for the very sick.

You see i true psychic is a person that will look at you and tell you things in “specifics” that are very private to you. I’m not talking about saying thigs like “you have alot of pain” or “you have lived your life with unceratainties”. No this is pure BS.

The specifics I’m talking about is her talking to a woman she met fore the first 5 min and asking her why is her son on the other side of the world, when this woman’s son has indeed been taken away from her to another side of the world. That’s when it gets interesting. Or when she can tell the Police where a person is being held or buried it happened and those are facts. Debunk all you want but i know what i know. She explained that seeing the future is not easy and does not always happen.

It’s not as easy as “call now, for 5.99 a minute blah blah blah”

True and i mean true pshychics are VERY rare and they are private individuals. Just think with a gift like this, it’s not easy to live. She told us that most real psyhics die of strokes, and she indeed died of a stroke herself, God bless her soul.

One thing i can say to those that totally don’t believe in this.

Realise that everying you believe is a sum of the things you have seen and already experienced. Those events shaped the current you. You should also consider all the things you have not yet experieced or seen and open your mind to the possibility of you not having seen anything yet. There’s a whole world out there we know nothing about.

True wisdom is knowing that you know nothing (corny, i know) only then does your mind truly open and you don’t fall victim to believing only what you see, but can consider possibilities and ideas you can’t prove exist but can’t prove that they don’t exist either. lack of evidence is not evidence within itself.

74

[quote]Gregus wrote:
You see right there you’re making personal attacks. You know why?
[/quote]

Yes, I do know why. You can’t come into the salloon, guns blazing, and then cry foul when somebody points a shotgun at your chest.

I assure you that I am quite calm.

You wrote: “Like you can teach someone to think, once you teach someone to think their thought are no longer their own.” Let’s really analyze this. On the one hand, you say “Like you can teach someone to think,” implying that this is impossible. You qualify the statement by contradicting yourself: “Once you teach someone to think,” and then by raising an objection to the teaching by saying that the person’s thoughts are no longer his own… that thoughts have somehow been implanted in his mind. Now you say that gee, of course people can learn to think better. So you’re back-tracking. That’s fine, just admit it.

This is true, but most philosophers with which I am familiar had access to education and prior philosophy.

Or, his latent talents are exposed to the light of reason, allowing them to bubble to the surface. Your choice.

Even the greatest basketball players must practice. You are correct, if I were to practice on the court every single day, I would never be able to beat MJ.
However, I’m not so sure that even MJ could’ve sat around eating nachos for his entire life, and then walk out onto the court and dominate.

Apology accepted.

75

The ‘characteristics’ of each sign are extremely vague such that they can fit anyone most of the time. If you approach the subject ‘looking’ for validation you will find it.

beef

76

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Gregus wrote:
You see right there you’re making personal attacks. You know why?

Yes, I do know why. You can’t come into the salloon, guns blazing, and then cry foul when somebody points a shotgun at your chest.

Your emotions overtook you.

I assure you that I am quite calm.

In essence yes, everyone can learn to think more critically, be better and more rational. Did your courses in critical thinking let you see that no where in what i wrote did i say that’s not true?

You wrote: “Like you can teach someone to think, once you teach someone to think their thought are no longer their own.” Let’s really analyze this. On the one hand, you say “Like you can teach someone to think,” implying that this is impossible. You qualify the statement by contradicting yourself: “Once you teach someone to think,” and then by raising an objection to the teaching by saying that the person’s thoughts are no longer his own… that thoughts have somehow been implanted in his mind. Now you say that gee, of course people can learn to think better. So you’re back-tracking. That’s fine, just admit it.

Same goes for mentalities, some are critical thikers and philosophers naturally.

This is true, but most philosophers with which I am familiar had access to education and prior philosophy.

In essence a true philospher can not study philosophy. One a philosopher studies philosophy of others his or her ideas and patterns of thinking are already influnced with a certain “style” and are no longer pure.

Or, his latent talents are exposed to the light of reason, allowing them to bubble to the surface. Your choice.

Now taking critical thinking classes is great, yes it will elevate the average to a higher level but they will never be able to compete with a natural who does not have to study someone elses design on how to see, process and undestand information. This is what i was saying.

Even the greatest basketball players must practice. You are correct, if I were to practice on the court every single day, I would never be able to beat MJ.
However, I’m not so sure that even MJ could’ve sat around eating nachos for his entire life, and then walk out onto the court and dominate.

It’s not my intention to make anyone feel bad, but sometimes speaking what you think will carry they responsibility of taking heat from those whom i may have offended. For that i apologise.

Apology accepted.[/quote]

Well let me say that given your response you’re a logical man. That’s good. Emotions do nothing but cloud issues and are a part of me that work very hard at diconnecting when it comes to discussions. Either way bro, glad we could understand and agree.

77

[quote]beefcakemdphd wrote:
The ‘characteristics’ of each sign are extremely vague such that they can fit anyone most of the time. If you approach the subject ‘looking’ for validation you will find it.

beef[/quote]

That is true. But i am very suprised that Pieces women are supposed to be very emotional and be little princesses that like others to work for them or at them. And this has been my experience with ever pieces woman, including my best friend whom was engaged to one.

78

[quote]Gregus wrote:
beefcakemdphd wrote:
The ‘characteristics’ of each sign are extremely vague such that they can fit anyone most of the time. If you approach the subject ‘looking’ for validation you will find it.

beef

That is true. But i am very suprised that Pieces women are supposed to be very emotional and be little princesses that like others to work for them or at them. And this has been my experience with ever pieces woman, including my best friend whom was engaged to one.
[/quote]

if instead of “pieces” you’d said “most” you’d have been right. my goal for today is to find out what sign every princess i know who doesn’t like to do their own shit is. if i find one who isn’t pieces will you admit defeat? your n=1 vs. my n=1.