Someone give me a quick rundown on the Zodiac

[Katsuni]

Do we want our children to be taught astrology, alchemy and creationism or do we want them to have an education?

I'd rather them to have a well rounded education where they learned both the most likely current theories and explainations, but were also taught to keep their minds open to possibilities which had not been fully explored previously as well, as there may be information inherant that has been glazed over by the unobservant.

How many medicines are we now discovering that've been used medically for thousands of years, but were skipped over by 'modern medicine' because they were ASSUMED to be fairy tales? Many of the chemical compounds used in medicine today were originally used before anyway, people just didn't understand why, and so their treatments were just ignored as superstition, when in fact they often had a strong basis in fact.

I'd want my children raised learning to seek out alternative concepts and theories, and to think of EVERYTHING critically, and tear everything apart equally with their mind, to learn all they can and base their decisions on an open minded approach, and the realization that science is just a tool to explain that which we don't understand, and that there's alot of things that science can't currently explain but doesn't mean it's any less real.

I want my kids, if I ever have any, to seek the truth and understand their world, not just accept things blindly.

Being taught only a single view of the world, and being told it is FACT, when there is always the possibility it may be in error in part, or in whole, is one I don't agree with at all.

I do, however, want stress placed upon the MOST LIKELY situation, with the information currently available. But I don't want a 90% probability to be viewed as 100%. That last 10% always bites yeu in the butt when yeu don't expect it.

 

[Mole]

I'd rather them to have a well rounded education where they learned both the most likely current theories and explainations, but were also taught to keep their minds open to possibilities which had not been fully explored previously as well, as there may be information inherant that has been glazed over by the unobservant.

How many medicines are we now discovering that've been used medically for thousands of years, but were skipped over by 'modern medicine' because they were ASSUMED to be fairy tales? Many of the chemical compounds used in medicine today were originally used before anyway, people just didn't understand why, and so their treatments were just ignored as superstition, when in fact they often had a strong basis in fact.

I'd want my children raised learning to seek out alternative concepts and theories, and to think of EVERYTHING critically, and tear everything apart equally with their mind, to learn all they can and base their decisions on an open minded approach, and the realization that science is just a tool to explain that which we don't understand, and that there's alot of things that science can't currently explain but doesn't mean it's any less real.

I want my kids, if I ever have any, to seek the truth and understand their world, not just accept things blindly.

Being taught only a single view of the world, and being told it is FACT, when there is always the possibility it may be in error in part, or in whole, is one I don't agree with at all.

I do, however, want stress placed upon the MOST LIKELY situation, with the information currently available. But I don't want a 90% probability to be viewed as 100%. That last 10% always bites yeu in the butt when yeu don't expect it.

Of course the scientific method is devoted to falsification.

And astrology, alchemy and creationism have been falsified.

And when I discover something is false, I change my mind.

What do you do?

 

[tinkerbell]

Simple astronomical facts known to every astronomer make nonsense of astrology.

You can ascertain these facts for yourself by reading a book on astronomy, or you could ring the Astronomy Department of a University and ask to speak to an astronomer. And they would be able to tell you these facts over the phone.

But what is truly important is that children be taught astronomy rather than astrology, in the same manner they are taught chemistry rather than alchemy, and biology rather than creationism.

Do we want our children to be taught astrology, alchemy and creationism or do we want them to have an education?

Victor,

You've not owned your own ignorance, and are accusing other people of being untruthful. This smacks of bigotry, which kids ought not to be taught.

It is infinately more important that kids are taught an all round education and given the tools to accept and reject points of view based on an actual understanding and rational to make a decision.

 

[Charmed Justice]

"Girls just wanna have fun?".

What about women? Do women just wanna have fun?

C'mon, women read women's magazines for diets that make you fat, for make-up and fashion that mimic arousal, for astrology that is a confidence trick, and all sold with a celebrity on the cover.

Hey, "girls just wanna have fun", 'cause they are emotionally and financially dependent.

You know, girls grow up into women. Girls grow up into independent women. Girls grow up to be emotionally and financially independent.

To refer to women as girls is to infantilize them. To refer to women as girls is to keep them as children - to keep them emotionally and financially dependent.

To refer to women as girls is confidence trick just like astrology, for women are not girls any more than men are boys.

We all know that to call a black man, "boy", is an insult. So to call a woman, "girl", is equally an insult.

But you have made it abundantly clear that you want to be seen as a girl, when in fact you are a woman. Why is that?

Surely you are not trying to pull a confidence trick.

Whoa whoa whoa guy. Cyndi Lauper, no?

I don't read women's magazines, or the horoscopes. I have nothing against it though. I don't know anyone who bases their entire life off of the horoscope in the back of a magazine, or newspaper. The stuff is good for entertainment value and good laughs.

Now, I don't think it's a total stretch to consider that when and where you were born affects you and potentially your personality. Seasons affect adults and their moods. Why not infants, or the condition of the pregnant woman?

Research Links Month of Birth to Disease - ABC News

 

[Katsuni]

Of course the scientific method is devoted to falsification.

And astrology, alchemy and creationism have been falsified.

And when I discover something is false, I change my mind.

What do you do?

The scientific method is also heavily flawed =3

It works well enough, but it prevents many more accurate theories from comming to light due to its' restrictive forms of testing and documentation.

It works insofar as it does whot it's supposed to do... but it is not a guaranteed covers-everything design which people treat it as.

Astrology has had sections of it falsified. Alchemy is real just not in the way it was originally envisioned. Most physicists are creationists, and there has never been proof contrary to it so don't just make stuff up.

When I discover enough EVIDENCE to believe something to no longer be probable, I change my mind, until new evidence suggests the old evidence may've been inaccurate. I don't assume anything to be 100%, because nothing ever is. There's always a grain of truth somewhere, and often that grain can be far larger than expected. People who invalidate things with pure totality miss out on some of the most important discoveries, because they didn't look closely enough at the information.

Yeur mere statement of "proved false" shows this. Nothing is ever 100% proved false, just proved well beyond reasonable doubt, into the point that it's exceptionally unlikely. Dropping the matter there and never looking back will fail yeu in the end, because when yeur belief that something is false is proved false... yeu won't look at that evidence since yeu've already made up yeur mind.

Criticism is highly important, yeu SHOULD put every idea and notion, belief and concept through a painful process of evaluation, but yeu should never believe yeur mission is 'done', because there's always a few more drops of truth that can be squeezed out of it that yeu missed. And ignoring that little leftover bit can be as disasterous as accepting the flawed concept whole heartedly.

Being a blind believer in logic can be just as bad as being a blind believer in faith. Never go to extremes, it'll always fail yeu in the end.

 

[Mole]

Nothing is ever 100% proved false

The scientific method can prove some things 100% false.

However the scientific method cannot prove anything to be 100% true.

 

[Mole]

The scientific method is also heavily flawed...

This would be most interesting to scientists. So perhaps you might like to write a letter to, "Scientific American", and let them know your views.

 

[Katsuni]

The scientific method can prove some things 100% false.

However the scientific method cannot prove anything to be 100% true.

Nu.... the scientific method can prove that, with the information provided, in the context it was given, with the assumptions made of the starting data, that this is not the case under these specific conditions.

It can't however, prove that the assumptions made were correct, that the information provided to start with was true, or that the context was valid. It can't even prove that the test itself wasn't interfered with by external stimuli that was not noticed. There's been loooooots of experiments performed where something external screwed up the measurements and noone noticed because they weren't aware that the external interaction was even occuring.

So no, it can't prove anything 100% false. It can only prove it to be exceedingly likely with the information understood at the time.

 

[tinkerbell]

The scientific method can prove some things 100% false.

However the scientific method cannot prove anything to be 100% true.

Actually your first point is wrong... it can only prove a negative within the limit of the test used, the test may be flawed or limited to a parameter that doens't suit the subject.

An example, viruses cells (are increadibly small), and endocrines didn't get proven until microscopes were powerful enough to see them - which was realitively recently... Prior to that science fell short

In the 1950's clinical depression was classified as being on Axis ii because it was untreatable... It is now on treatable.

Science method is flawed as it is limited to the measurment within the time, using the quipment of that time. Any good researher can tell you that - it is the basic parameter of any research programme

 

[Mole]

Most physicists are creationists, and there has never been proof contrary to it

Creationism says that species were created individually by God, but biology in the, "Origin of Species", says that species were created by natural selection.

And natural selection has been recently confirmed by genetics. And indeed the genome allows us to pin point with accuracy just where on the branches of life any species had its origin.

So creationism has been 100% falsified, just as astrology has been 100% falsified by astronomy, and alchemy has been 100% falsified by chemisty.

 

[Mole]

Here I think we are seeing the scientific method set up as a straw man all the more easy to knock down.

The scientific method being described here is unrecognisable to me as the scientific method. And I think it would be unrecognisable to any scientist.

 

[Katsuni]

Creationism says that species were created individually by God, but biology in the, "Origin of Species", says that species were created by natural selection.

And natural selection has been recently confirmed by genetics. And indeed the genome allows us to pin point with accuracy just where on the branches of life any species had its origin.

So creationism has been 100% falsified, just as astrology has been 100% falsified by astronomy, and alchemy has been 100% falsified by chemisty.

This's a common error, and not actually accurate at all.

Whot yeu're forgetting to note... is that darwin himself was a strong roman catholic with the firm belief in creationism.

He *NEVER* said that "god created 100% of all the species", but that instead god created the species to start with, and then created rules for them to interact with, to see whot would happen.

The belief of traditional darwin theory of species gradually undergoing evolutionary change has also been disproved through fossil records (except that there's not enough fossils to be 100% sure of this either), and the current accepted theory is that species actually undergo quantum jumps in the evolutionary process (how does a placenta evolve? It can't without several dozen other massive physiological changes at the same time), and that in itself implies that god *DID* have a direct hand in evolution because the jumps are far too vast for evolutionary theory to support.

So no, the book yeu quoted has been disproved, the way yeu're using the theory is wrong even by the words of the person who wrote it disagrees with yeur statement, and natural selection in no way discludes the existance of creationism, but in fact rather supports it.

 

[tinkerbell]

Weird that really..... I'm a researcher by profession, which is why I can give you a cast iron gauranette that any research method is flawed by the limits of what is possible at the time the research is conducted....

Guys can I suggest we stop feeding Victor and get back to the thread subject....

 

[Katsuni]

Guys can I suggest we stop feeding Victor and get back to the thread subject....

I refuse to allow poor reasoning to thrive simply because of irritation. If it's an invalid form of reasoning, I fully intend to call people out on it. Giving up on it simply because they don't listen doesn't help, it just means that others nearby may take it as the assumption that the person was right.

Yeu can't just go "well this's stupid I'm not arguing anymore", the whole "the only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". Except I don't believe in evil as an objective term, and we don't have any good men around here so I'll have to cover for them ^.~

The point is, if yeu make a poor argument, expect me to point out why it's flawed. I do this even on posts I *AGREE* with. Actually, especially on things I agree with, at that. I won't have yeu screwing up something that's actually RIGHT and making everyone disagree with it because yeu have crap all for methodology in yeur explaination. If yeu screw up, I need people to know WHY yeu screwed up, especially yeu, so yeu stop doing it >.<

Refer to my signature; if yeu're right for the wrong reasons, yeu're still wrong. The final answer means nothing if yeu don't understand it.

 

[Mole]

darwin himself was a strong roman catholic with the firm belief in creationism.

Wow, and I thought Charles Darwin was an Anglican.

And I had the impression that Roman Catholicism has never taught the doctrine of creationism.

So I am quite surprised to discover that the Roman Catholic Charles Darwin was a creationist.

 

[tinkerbell]

The point is, if yeu make a poor argument, expect me to point out why it's flawed. I do this even on posts I *AGREE* with. Actually, especially on things I agree with, at that. I won't have yeu screwing up something that's actually RIGHT and making everyone disagree with it because yeu have crap all for methodology in yeur explaination. If yeu screw up, I need people to know WHY yeu screwed up, especially yeu, so yeu stop doing it >.<
.

This could be a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong thread. Victor's aruments are poorly founded, and based on irgnoance... I doubt you will ever get him to admit that, but knock yourself out trying to argue the toss with him.....

 

[tinkerbell]

If she was born in mid March-May or October, then I'd be completely sold on this thing. Fun stuff.

*****
Ok, theory disproven. She's got my husband's birthday(ISTJ).lol

Enf.... given the last sentence did you try out your husband's reading to see if it suited his ISTJ type....

You do need to be careful when looking at these things - for something called the barnum effect - which is absically you reading what you want out of a report.

Astrologers typically will say 70-80% of the reading ought to be idenitifiably accurate....

A suggestion is to print something out and take a highlighter pen to the stuff you agree with... then give it to someone who knows you well and they can highlight in a different colour what they know of you (see yourself from the inside and outside)... it's useful to see if you are just nodding along to the bits you like.

MBTI reports often have this effect on me.....

One causion is that astro.com do a bit of a short crappy report so it will be limited by that... a full reading has more detail (and ideally with human analysis - computer programmes can't do the analytics part).

 

[Charmed Justice]

This could be a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong thread. Victor's aruments are poorly founded, and based on irgnoance... I doubt you will ever get him to admit that, but knock yourself out trying to argue the toss with him.....

Ok, so what do you think of birth month and health? There has been some evidence there. If there is a connection there, I don't think it's too far of a stretch to say that personality could also be affected by the season you were born in.

 

[tinkerbell]

Ok, so what do you think of birth month and health? There has been some evidence there. If there is a connection there, I don't think it's too far of a stretch to say that personality could also be affected by the season you were born in.

From an astrological perspective - the 6th house in any natives chart rules health... the 1st house wellness... houses are birth time related.

There is a branch of astology that looks at medical matters called decumbrature.... its pretty specalist (within a specalisim).

Technically is it possible that people born in a specific moth would have a greater than average tendancy to an illness... yes kind of, but its astreach and certainly wouldn't be a common phenomina....

Two planets have aspect to each other may indicate a higher than usual tendancy towards a specific type illness.

Mars square Saturn often suffers from thwarted ego drives - which can cause rage (and realted heart problems), importence and a variety of other conditions. Mars moves quikcly in comparision to Saturn... But if Mars what squaring Saturn during a period when it was slowing down to station then retrograde, it would give several weeks of the aspect in action.... so technically possible but a rarity.

The otter planets are much slower so much more likely to be invovled in this type of thing.

Sun, moon, merucry and venus - all more to fast even in slow motion for this to ever happen.

 

[Charmed Justice]

From an astrological perspective - the 6th house in any natives chart rules health... the 1st house wellness... houses are birth time related.

There is a branch of astology that looks at medical matters called decumbrature.... its pretty specalist (within a specalisim).

Technically is it possible that people born in a specific moth would have a greater than average tendancy to an illness... yes kind of, but its astreach and certainly wouldn't be a common phenomina....

Two planets have aspect to each other may indicate a higher than usual tendancy towards a specific type illness.

Mars square Saturn often suffers from thwarted ego drives - which can cause rage (and realted heart problems), importence and a variety of other conditions. Mars moves quikcly in comparision to Saturn... But if Mars what squaring Saturn during a period when it was slowing down to station then retrograde, it would give several weeks of the aspect in action.... so technically possible but a rarity.

The otter planets are much slower so much more likely to be invovled in this type of thing.

Sun, moon, merucry and venus - all more to fast even in slow motion for this to ever happen.

Month Of Conception Linked To Birth Defects In United States

Onset of Menopause Linked to Birth Month

Birth Month And Short-Sightedness Linked By TAU Researchers

So scientist are out there digging in, trying to find birth month(seasonal) correlations to health. I'm sure personality will come next in the field of psychology.