Do any of you use Astrology in Gay Dating?

[BigBen]

I'm sorry, but I just can't see how the direction my birthplace was facing out into the universe at the moment I was born can have any effect on me.  And why the moment I was born?  Shouldn't the moment of conception be the determinant?

Since the entire solar system is rushing through space at a staggering velocity, this means that even if the earth is facing generally toward the same constellation every twelve months, the actual direction in which it is pointing is different.  It's just that the stars in these constellations are so far away that our motion in relation to them is not noticeable to the naked eye.  Astrology takes for granted the old terracentric view that the earth is flat, and the stars are fixed to a dome arching above.

[Talo Segura]

“Learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.”

― Leonardo da Vinci

[Freerider]

On 2/18/2021 at 9:27 PM, C. Henderson said:

Personally, I think Astrology is a fascinating concept. It doesn't consciously guide any of my romantic decisions, but I do always end up drawn to the same 2 zodiac signs over and over again...so take whatever conclusion you want out of that 😄

My conclusion out of that is that you participate in the mass delusion that the sun's apparent position relative to arbitrarily defined constellations at the time of your birth somehow affects your personality. 😜

[Freerider]

17 hours ago, Talo Segura said:

“Learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.”

― Leonardo da Vinci

I am pretty sure that he was not talking about astrology here. He is often misused as an ally for astrology, but he was no more than a man of his time. A time where religion and superstitions were overbearing. It is claimed he liked to attribute some protective powers to an amulet which he wore. Which would be more of an animistic nature than astrological.

And because you misused the great Leonardo 😁 I will give you this nice quote about astrology and connections:

“Astrology provides a brilliant proof of the miserable subjectivity of human beings, as a result of which they relate everything to themselves and go from every thought in a straight line immediately back to themselves. It relates the course of the great celestial bodies to the pathetic I, as it also connects the comets in the sky with earthly quarrels and shabby tricks.”

― Arthur Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena

 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2021 by Freerider

[K.C.]

I don't put any faith in Astrology.  Being a twin and being as different as night/day, I can't believe that zodiac traits or the daily horoscope that could define me would EVER apply to him (or vice versa).  

[C. Henderson]

8 hours ago, Freerider said:

My conclusion out of that is that you participate in the mass delusion that the sun's apparent position relative to arbitrarily defined constellations at the time of your birth somehow affects your personality. 😜

That's cool, it's your prerogative to be a logic lord. 

[AC Benus]

I have used it as a subject, in a short story posted here called "Suffer No Fools" - a skeptic gets an astrological reading as a birthday present from his aunt, and both the young man and the professional Astrologer come in for a surprise  

Edited February 20, 2021 by AC Benus

[Talo Segura]

20 hours ago, Freerider said:

And because you misused the great Leonardo 😁 I will give you this nice quote about astrology and connections

Arthur Schopenhauer, 

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

[Freerider]

2 hours ago, Talo Segura said:

Arthur Schopenhauer, 

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Touché! 😂

[Freerider]

10 hours ago, AC Benus said:

I have used it as a subject, in a short story posted here called "Suffer No Fools" - a skeptic gets an astrological reading as a birthday present from his aunt, and both the young man and the professional Astrologer come in for a surprise  

The entertainment value of astrology and other things that are "more between heaven and earth" is certainly there. I like to read stories like that. That is innocent enough.

But I draw the line at considering any of it possible/real/truth. Unfortunately too many people that are searching for something spiritual are falling in the traps of nonsense and lies. Quite quickly it becomes not so innocent anymore.   

[AC Benus]

18 hours ago, Talo Segura said:

Arthur Schopenhauer, 

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

One of my absolute favorite quotes. I can still remember bringing it up in a conversation I had with a Berkeley professor about keeping an open mind on controversial subjects, and he ridiculing the quote strenuously, opposing Schopenhauer's idea itself!

We were talking abt academic careers crushed by fellow academics not satisfied in disputing theories, but in impugning the sanity of the professionals advancing new discoveries. Specifically, I mentioned the ruined career of Alfred Wegener, the geologist who proposed a plate tectonic subduction zone in the Pacific, and a corresponding expansion zone in the Atlantic. He was ruthlessly ridiculed and ruined, only to have this theories treated as obvious once accurate ocean-floor mapping was possible in the 1950s. 

Wegener's case is just one of dozens littering the floor of "turf-based" academics. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by AC Benus

[Freerider]

8 minutes ago, AC Benus said:

One of my absolute favorite quotes. I can still remember bringing it up in a conversation I had with a Berkeley professor about keeping an open mind on controversial subjects, and he ridiculing the quote strenuously, opposing Schopenhauer's idea itself!

We were talking abt academic careers crushed by fellow academics not satisfied in disputing theories, but in impugning the sanity of the professionals advancing new discoveries. Specifically, I mentioned the ruined career of Alfred Wegener, the geologist who proposed a plate tectonic subduction zone in the Atlantic, and a corresponding expansion zone in the Pacific. He was ruthlessly ridiculed and ruined, only to have this theories treated as obvious once accurate ocean-floor mapping was possible in the 1950s. 

Wegener's case if just one of dozens littering the floor of "turf-based" academics. 

Many examples of that unfortunately. Scientists are human after all.

Yet, we can not interpret Schopenhauer in a way that makes everything that is ridiculed an eventual truth. Many ideas are ridiculed for good reason. Lack of repeatability, lack of falsifiability and lack of testable predictions are very good reasons for ridicule. 

[AC Benus]

9 hours ago, Freerider said:

The entertainment value of astrology and other things that are "more between heaven and earth" is certainly there. I like to read stories like that. That is innocent enough.

But I draw the line at considering any of it possible/real/truth. Unfortunately too many people that are searching for something spiritual are falling in the traps of nonsense and lies. Quite quickly it becomes not so innocent anymore.   

Regarding Astrology specifically, devotees will point out how easy it is to test scientifically. Setting aside any notions on "how" it might work, simple, observable tests have been published. In very repeatable findings, a gathering of professionals, isolated from one another, but working in the same place and at the same time, can be given the randomly selected birthdate and map coordinates of a person from history. Not only do the Astrologers produce "readings" for this person that are alike in details, the findings match the historical record of what the person was actually like. 

Concerning the "how it works," like feng shui, Astrology can be considered a documented set of observations -- one generated and refined over thousands of human generations -- that has produced a canon of referenceable data on predicting outcomes based on recored precedent; that's all. One does not need to think the "planets speaks" to give due to accurate information, when accurate information is provable. 

[AC Benus]

6 minutes ago, Freerider said:

Many examples of that unfortunately. Scientists are human after all.

Yet, we can not interpret Schopenhauer in a way that makes everything that is ridiculed an eventual truth. Many ideas are ridiculed for good reason. Lack of repeatability, lack of falsifiability and lack of testable predictions are very good reasons for ridicule. 

Schopenhauer is clear enough: he said "all truth" -- which precludes all that is not the truth, like BS

 

[Freerider]

16 minutes ago, AC Benus said:

Regarding Astrology specifically, devotees will point out how easy it is to test scientifically.

Is is easy to test scientifically and it has been done many times. It always fell short of scientific evidence.

A famous case where scientists came "close" to prove there was more between heaven and earth was the Stanford Research Institute. Specifically the testing of Uri Geller is still quoted as a huge success for parapsychology (mainly by Geller himself 😄). But the tests were laughably flawed at best. Scientifically the tests were of zero worth, but for PR purposes they are still gold. People just want to believe so desperately. 

That multiple astrologers come up with the same chart after given a person's details does not prove anything byond the fact that they probably made the same "calculations". It proves nothing of astrology.

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by Freerider

[Freerider]

15 minutes ago, AC Benus said:

Schopenhauer is clear enough: he said "all truth" -- which precludes all that is not the truth, like BS

 

I agree. Just making sure we are on the same page here 😉

[AC Benus]

6 minutes ago, Freerider said:

Is is easy to test scientifically and it has been done many times. It always fell short of scientific evidence.

A famous case where scientists came "close" to prove there was more between heaven and earth was the Stanford Research Institute. Specifically the testing of Uri Geller is still quoted as a huge success for parapsychology (mainly by Geller himself 😄). But the tests were laughably flawed at best. Scientifically the tests were of zero worth, but for PR purposes they are still gold. People just want to believe so desperately. 

Yes, and "belief" in failed findings, because it's more comfortable to convention, is a major disadvantage to true science. It goes hand in hand with the hubris of "knowing" without testing. I know nothing about the Geller tests, but much about the random generators developed by the University of Virginia producing results beyond chance ranges. But, believe what's comfortable for you  

Edited February 21, 2021 by AC Benus

[Freerider]

3 minutes ago, AC Benus said:

Yes, and "belief" in failed findings, because it more comfortable to convention, is a major disadvantage to true science. It goes hand in hand with the hubris of "knowing" without testing. I know nothing about the Geller tests, but much about the random generators developed by the University of Virginia producing results beyond chance ranges. But, believe what's comfortable for you  

As long as one is not bothering others one can believe what one wants.

Now you are getting in my field: random number generators, white and pink noise. I am not familiar with the University of Virginia research. What Google tells me after a quick search is that this regards pseudo-RNGs. No surprise that the results will be predictable and possible biased then. But maybe we are getting off topic with our very entertaining (for me at least) slow chat. ☺️

[AC Benus]

41 minutes ago, Freerider said:

Many examples of that unfortunately. Scientists are human after all.

 

I have to say, "being human" is a rotten excuse for professionals acting petty and vindictive to new theories. Just this week, a new discovery advances a Stephen Hawking theory that was lambasted when it first appeared. Even a person of his stature was treated as "feeble minded" by his colleagues for proposing things that upset the applecart of their cozy preconceived notions.  

You should read chapter 24 of my Mojo -- It will drive you insane

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by AC Benus

[AC Benus]

3 minutes ago, Freerider said:

What Google tells me after a quick search is that this regards pseudo-RNGs. 

"As long as one is not bothering others one can believe what one wants."

[AC Benus]

2 minutes ago, AC Benus said:

 

 

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by AC Benus

[Freerider]

16 minutes ago, AC Benus said:

I have to say, "being human" is a rotten excuse for professionals acting petty and vindictive to new theories. Just this week, a new discovery advances a Stephen Hawking theory that was lambasted when it first appeared. Even a person of his stature was treated as "feeble minded" by his colleagues for proposing things that upset the applecart of their cozy preconceived notions.  

You should read chapter 24 of my Mojo -- It will drive you insane

 

You write faster than I can read. I will put it on my list 😀

Scientists being human is not an excuse, just an observation.

[Freerider]

18 minutes ago, AC Benus said:

"As long as one is not bothering others one can believe what one wants."

It does not imply that others can't question one's beliefs.

Edited February 21, 2021 by Freerider

[BigBen]

23 hours ago, AC Benus said:

a skeptic gets an astrological reading as a birthday present from his aunt, and both the young man and the professional Astrologer come in for a surprise

If they are both hot and fall in love, that would be the kind of surprise I'd enjoy! 😄👍

[BigBen]

2 hours ago, Freerider said:

this regards pseudo-RNGs. No surprise that the results will be predictable and possible biased then.

Generating truly random numbers is a challenge.  And then, how can you be sure?  (Scott Adams made this point in a strip many years ago, in which Dilbert is visiting the demons of accounting and they pass by a demon generating random numbers.  Lots of nines, as I recall, and as the demon says to Dilbert, "How can we tell?").

 

2 hours ago, AC Benus said:

I have to say, "being human" is a rotten excuse for professionals acting petty and vindictive to new theories.

And yet, as Heisenberg observed, sometimes science has to progress one death at a time.  It wasn't until all the medical authorities who drove Semmelweis into the asylum had died that hand-washing between procedures became standard medical practice.

People laughed at Lemaître for proposing what later came to be called the "Big Bang" theory.  I believe it was Fred Hoyle who first called it that, in ridicule.  I believe part of the initial resistance to the Big Bang came from fears that the notion was too similar to the Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo.  (The fact that Lemaître was a Catholic priest didn't help, despite the fact that his observations were irrefutable.)  Now it's standard cosmology, the steady-state universe is refuted, and you can watch a debate on YouTube in which a prominent atheist uses the Big Bang to support the notion that there is no God.

I resisted the notion of the Higgs Field for many years, because it sounded far too much like the luminiferous aether that was debunked by Maxwell.  Given that people are now re-examining the possible role of leeches in healing, can it be too long before someone takes another look at the notion of phlogiston?

Edited February 21, 2021 by BigBen