skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

how skeptiks de-test astrology

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
woodwater



Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Posts: 151
Location: lisbon

Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 1:43 pm    Post subject: how skeptiks de-test astrology Reply with quote

Hi
The following thread has some interesting views on why research done by skeptics like Dean and Mather are not reliable


http://www.bobmarksastrologer.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7977
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kylie



Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 25
Location: east coast australia

Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sorry but i wouldnt even read anything on a bobmarks site....
_________________
Perseverantia omnia vincit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
woodwater



Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Posts: 151
Location: lisbon

Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kylie wrote:
sorry but i wouldnt even read anything on a bobmarks site....


why??
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kylie



Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 25
Location: east coast australia

Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

he is a modern astrologer that will tell you that the 11th house is ruled by aquarius...etc etc...

I dont know, i guess to traditional astrology these days....
_________________
Perseverantia omnia vincit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Coffee



Joined: 27 May 2007
Posts: 130

Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Plenty of reasons why I would never look at that, but mainly because we all know anyway...they don't understand astrology.

Sorry to hear about your views Kylie.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GarryP
Moderator


Joined: 23 Oct 2003
Posts: 213
Location: UK

Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think it's clear who the 'they' in the last post (i.e. the people who don't understand astrology) is. It could be: Critics of astrology generally; Dean and Mather in particular; or Modern astrologers for that matter.

It seems most likely, given that the post began with a link to an article about them, to be Dean and Mather. I'd be interested to know whether people think it's acceptable to dismiss *all* criticism of astrology out of hand, as due to a lack of understanding? Or perhaps all attempts to evaluate astrology statistically? And if so, why?

What are your grounds, Coffee?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
James Frazier



Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 54
Location: USA

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It seems to me that if we can get over our sensitivity to criticism from skeptics that we might learn something. In other words, should we ask ourselves is there any truth to what they are saying before we reject them out of hand without much consideration of what they are saying, their objections to us, or why they may be attacking us? Now I admit that this is difficult. When one is being attacked the natural response to either run away or counter attack. But lest we fall into the trap that they have fallen into, namely rejecting everything we say and launching vitriolic attacks on even our sanity, should we not at least make an attempt to rise above that strategy and open upon a little and seriously examine what they have against us.
Now I am certainly not the first to propose that we do this, notable both Cornelius and Phillipson have argued this position and, in the case of Phillipson, he has actually gone the distance by dialoguing with some of our most vocal critics with an attitude of mutual respect which has opened the door to a developing discourse.
One of the fastest ways to get at our own shadow is to listen to the opposing views. Then perhaps we gain a little more insight into ourselves and if nothing else it gives us an opportunity to grow and even strengthen our arguments by thinking deeper about a defense. At times, it seems to me that the two camps are like warring magicians both inflated to the max and possessed with unconscious power complexes.
By the way, I am under no illusions that the critics of astrology will be won over to our position- that would not be the purpose of listening to them more closely. The purpose would be to see if there is anything in what they say that we need to be more conscious of and to examine our own dark side. The problem with polarization and demonization of the opposition is that no movement occurs because each side is stuck in a “righteous” position against which almost no reason can dissuade.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Papretis



Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Posts: 346
Location: Finland

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 5:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

James Frazier wrote:
It seems to me that if we can get over our sensitivity to criticism from skeptics that we might learn something. In other words, should we ask ourselves is there any truth to what they are saying before we reject them out of hand without much consideration of what they are saying, their objections to us, or why they may be attacking us?

Couldn't agree more.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Coffee



Joined: 27 May 2007
Posts: 130

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GarryP wrote:
I don't think it's clear who the 'they' in the last post (i.e. the people who don't understand astrology) is. It could be: Critics of astrology generally; Dean and Mather in particular; or Modern astrologers for that matter.


Skeptics, Dean and Mather. It seemed pretty clear to me GarryP.

GarryP wrote:

It seems most likely, given that the post began with a link to an article about them, to be Dean and Mather.


Got it Thumbs up

GarryP wrote:

I'd be interested to know whether people think it's acceptable to dismiss *all* criticism of astrology out of hand, as due to a lack of understanding? Or perhaps all attempts to evaluate astrology statistically? And if so, why?

What are your grounds, Coffee?


Possible ignorance of the ignorant?

If you do astrology and understand that it does work, any skeptic claims must be taken with a pinch of salt as we know that it does work. If they dont think it so, who are we to persuade them?

Criticism of astrological technique within astrology is fine as both parties have an understanding of its inner workings.
Hope this answers your question.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated