[MBTI General] is astrology real?

[PeaceBaby]

So, to sum up, there are unbelievers, believers, and converts, there are practitioners, and there are wise ones who know the secrets and will dispense their wisdom for coin. And there is forthcoming no statement of mechanism. Unbelievers may not be convinced by looking into the mechanics, but only by discovering that "it works!"

Love that summary Kalach - perfect. Couldn't have said it better myself (and unbelievers sounds somehow more pertinent than nonbelievers, so nice word choice.)

 

[dga]

:yim_rolling_on_the_:yim_rolling_on_the_:yim_rolling_on_the_:yim_rolling_on_the_:yim_rolling_on_the_:yim_rolling_on_the_:yim_rolling_on_the_:yim_rolling_on_the_:yim_rolling_on_the_:yim_rolling_on_the_:yim_rolling_on_the_:yim_rolling_on_the_:yim_rolling_on_the_:yim_rolling_on_the_:yim_rolling_on_the_

Has tinkerbell supported her argument with any examples?


It is really difficult to take her seriously when any and all of her points are filled with writing so difficult to read in the first place, accounting for typos, dyslexia, and however residing in london that english a second language for her.

Tinkerbell, you have some doubters. Provide evidence of how astrology works instead of talking around it and talking down to others or don't be surprised if you are simply cast off as a crazy old woman (as it is you that has made gender and age an issue)


however, please do keep on. reading this thread is better than drugs.

 

[Kangirl]

Has tinkerbell supported her argument with any examples?

No.

There is *literally* no reason to believe astrology has any use in terms of predicting real world events or behaviours.

 

[matmos]

Mars ... you're thinking of Mars. (PeaceBaby lovingly strokes the crystal ball.)



Yes, Mars meets Uranus

You peaceniks!

We want evidence, Tinkers. Show us evidenceor Uranus

 

[Darjur]

Actually, I'd prefer to not observe Uranus.

 

[Kangirl]

Stop being flirtatious, Darjur!

What's your sign btw? I'm a Libra.

Anyone? Any Aries or Gemini here? I'm supposed to get along with them.

 

[Darjur]

Capricorn, or so would I guess is the english name for that thing.

 

[sculpting]

Just to comment on the whole, hysterical thread. Couldnt give a crap about astrology honestly but I do have to agree that there are many things out there that have not been fully understood by science yet.

Science does not have all the answers, and if the only place you look for answers is in the hands of other scientists you just missed.

Science is good at taking a reductive, disective approach to problems. It hasnt been so great at dealing with complex systems, and only now are you seeing some of that complexity addressed.

The flaws in science hit home very hard for me several years back. I was very, very sick yet none of the bloodwork or tests showed any problems, thus in my drs mind there was nothing wrong with me. I spent three months so sick that by three pm I could only lie on the floor and tremor. I went to about fifteen different drs and none of them could find a problem that fit within the confines of thier scientific boxes.

I was planning my own suicide but I wanted to live to be 30. I was going to drown myself in a lake so that my family could collect insurance and it would look like an accident. About this time I stumbled across a paper in a third tier research journal that descibed a biochemical pathway linking ADH/vasopressin to cortisol secretion.

In an afternoon I figured out why the steps that led there had made me sick and figured out what I needed to to reverse the process. It was a very odd set of circumstance that led to the problem but very real and the tests that might have clarified it are either not even done or not common.

I just happened to be about ten years further ahead than my endocrinologist. My body choose not to wait for science to catch up.

 

[Costrin]

Just to comment on the whole, hysterical thread. Couldnt give a crap about astrology honestly but I do have to agree that there are many things out there that have not been fully understood by science yet.

Science does not have all the answers, and if the only place you look for answers is in the hands of other scientists you just missed.

Science is good at taking a reductive, disective approach to problems. It hasnt been so great at dealing with complex systems, and only now are you seeing some of that complexity addressed.

The flaws in science hit home very hard for me several years back. I was very, very sick yet none of the bloodwork or tests showed any problems, thus in my drs mind there was nothing wrong with me. I spent three months so sick that by three pm I could only lie on the floor and tremor. I went to about fifteen different drs and none of them could find a problem that fit within the confines of thier scientific boxes.

I was planning my own suicide but I wanted to live to be 30. I was going to drown myself in a lake so that my family could collect insurance and it would look like an accident. About this time I stumbled across a paper in a third tier research journal that descibed a biochemical pathway linking ADH/vasopressin to cortisol secretion.

In an afternoon I figured out why the steps that led there had made me sick and figured out what I needed to to reverse the process. It was a very odd set of circumstance that led to the problem but very real and the tests that might have clarified it are either not even done or not common.

I just happened to be about ten years further ahead than my endocrinologist. My body choose not to wait for science to catch up.

Congratulations, you did science to figure out your problem, and the information you needed to solve your problem was gotten by science.

Your doctors were wrong. That does not mean that science as a whole fails.

Science is not the mainstream opinions of scientists, doctors, engineers, etc. Science is not the tests and the technologies those people use. Science is a way of attaining knowledge. The only way of getting the most valid data. Science is the process of making observations, forming a hypothesis, and testing it. Any time you do that, you are using science. That's why when people say science is wrong, it does not compute. Science doesn't have a position, it doesn't state anything, so it can't be wrong. People who use science can be wrong however. They could use science, and reach an incorrect conclusion. However, it is them, and not science that is wrong.

 

[sculpting]

Sorry the flaw is not with "science" as in the theoretical abstract idea of it. The flaw is in the minds of NTs who think they fully understand the boundaries and details of the scientific knowledge they possess. They assume to have the answers in front of them or that all data has been submitted and then make the best logical answer they can, forgetting to ask the next question.

this is not a defense of astrology at all, hahaha! but could be applied to most areas that are poorly understood by science.

The take home little NTs: It's okay to say "I don't know. I don't understand."

 

[Costrin]

Sorry the flaw is not with "science" as in the theoretical abstract idea of it. The flaw is in the minds of NTs who think they fully understand the boundaries and details of the scientific knowledge they possess. They assume to have the answers in front of them or that all data has been submitted and then make the best logical answer they can, forgetting to ask the next question.

this is not a defense of astrology at all, hahaha! but could be applied to most areas that are poorly understood by science.

The take home little NTs: It's okay to say "I don't know. I don't understand."

le sigh, not this again.

1. Why so typist?
2. You're assuming many NTs don't already do this.

 

[Kangirl]

They assume to have the answers in front of them or that all data has been submitted and then make the best logical answer they can, forgetting to ask the next question.

This isn't true of me at all, nor, as far as I can see from most of the NTs here, is it generally true for them. What is described above is pretty much the exact opposite process to what I go through. I *never* assume an answer without proof.

How is this:

x: astrology is real and useful
y: do you have proof?
x: no
y: well then I can't believe in astrology

an example of 'y' assuming answers??!

 

[Darjur]

I can't remember saying that I know everything at this point.

 

[Willfrey]

Sorry the flaw is not with "science" as in the theoretical abstract idea of it. The flaw is in the minds of NTs who think they fully understand the boundaries and details of the scientific knowledge they possess. They assume to have the answers in front of them or that all data has been submitted and then make the best logical answer they can, forgetting to ask the next question.

this is not a defense of astrology at all, hahaha! but could be applied to most areas that are poorly understood by science.

The take home little NTs: It's okay to say "I don't know. I don't understand."

I don't know, I don't understand. I'm going to consult my birth chart.


...
But seriously,

There are areas poorly understood. That is why we build multi-billion dollar atom smashers, fire rockets into space, saw people's heads open and poke their brains, etc. We don't simply throw our hands in the air and say it'll never be discovered and harr-umph and pout.

 

[Kalach]

Hi, I'm an Aries, and I like walks in the rain.

Science, or more exactly the scientific method, is the shiznit for open questions amenable to inquiry via making a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis, then interpreting the results. Since "test" is easily and meaningfully definable for physical stuff, the scientific method is the shiznit for open questions about the physical world. There are other kinds of question. For example:

Who is God?
What is love?
Why am I here?

Conveniently, you bunch of retards, there is, and always has been, several straightforward and well-understood methods for approaching such questions.

The first method has been very popular: make up answers you like and create a social system. I'll go out on a sturdy limb and say all historical cultures have used this one. But there's another method: enjoy a more liberal social environment and in the meantime do conceptual analysis.

Thus, for example, science is wasting it's time delving into astrology. An analysis of the concepts involved make it clear that astrology is a faith-based system.

 

[Venom]

I'm only ribbing about science because it makes NT's eye glow red, it's like their religion. Science is good for testing stuff, but to be honest innovations and science as best kept apart until the innovsator has found something they find works. IMO if you apply Science before creativity it become self fullfiling brick wall.

religion: ideas are not falsifiable. ie: no amount or lack of evidence could ever convince the followers they are wrong.
science: if evidence proves them to be wrong, ideas are tossed aside. if all evidence up to this point checks out, proceed as if they are true until new evidence arrives.

now how is it again that science is the close minded one?


science deals with the physical world because thats the world we live in. "to speak of immaterial things, is to speak of nothings"--Thomas Jefferson. There is no arrogance in making such a claim, because to make claims about things that arent part of the natural world, is to make claims about things that are by definition MADE OF NOTHING. (thats not science, thats LOGIC).

 

[BlackCat]

My astrological assessment was strangely accurate. I was pretty skeptical until I examined the one I had done when I was born, it's very accurate.

 

[01011010]

lol Astrology. Yeah, right.

 

[Willfrey]

My astrological assessment was strangely accurate. I was pretty skeptical until I examined the one I had done when I was born, it's very accurate.

Did it tell you you were going to eat today, meet somebody you know, make a financial decision and you may or may not have to do something in the future?

 

[sculpting]

le sigh, not this again.

1. Why so typist?
2. You're assuming many NTs don't already do this.

Sorry, sorry, sorry!!! I really do love NTs in all flavors! Dont mean to be so judgemental.

It is a "challenge" I see some of them going through through, especially when they are confronted w a fuzzy, ill-defined problem.

I think this can be shaped by profession and forgiveness in that profession for incorrectness.

When in grad school, I was on the main campus surrounded by physicists. They are they first to admist when they dont have a clue as they are so smart there are few insecurity issues.

As you crept towards the medical campus, chemistry, biochemisrty, cell biology, nuerobiology, physiology, and god forbid the fucking MDs, things got more and more cut throat. As an MD it is not acceptable to be incorrect ever. You are heavily penalized and humiliated for it, and this carries over into the real world when they deal w patients. They still have a pretty shiny NT core but have buried it.


You guys do get all bent in a twist though if the problem gets fuzzy, and then can take it out on us poor NFs. We were born fuzzy. Its just what we do.