Armchair dissident

There is no uphill struggle for a paranormal claim if the claim is valid, sound and can be consistently replicated. In the several thousand years that astrology has been around it has failed to meet this simple criteria.

The idea that the position of the planets in the solar system can - and does - predictably influence daily lives of people here on Earth should be simple to demonstrate as fact. All you need to do is consistently provide clear, and accurate predictions on future events. Astrology - along peddlers of psychic abilities, ghosts, perpetual motion, homeopathy etc etc - consistently fail to do this. :banghead:

Of course, if you feel like you're being unfairly treated, you could always take a trip to the USA, prove your claims, and grab a million dollars in the bargain.

Volker.Doormann

Your have not shown, that you are competent to argue scientifically adequate to the science of astrology. You have shown, that you are believing, that astrology is a belief system. But if one do not belief in French, this affects not the function of a language and the knowledge, which can be transmitted with French. Your disbelief is as worthless as a belief, it affects not the function of astrology and the knowledge, which can be transmitted with astrology. You cannot show, that your 'black hole' position is science or an acknowledged method in science; there is nothing else as ignorance - and a master/slave imagination, were you are the master of decision - to the given evidence of astrological outputs in this thread, as it is described in the above article about the lacks of understanding science by many skeptics.

This shown evidences in many cases - you can read them back - are facts, skepticism like Randi or Gardener never have given proofs of their claims; it is pure fiction, a sect in science and a pure belief system without any natural base. What is the worth of a belief? 'I am xyz!'. Where is the proof, that this xyz is no belief, but science on a natural base?

There is no - as you can see from the silence to this questions here.

Volker: "Around the date of 2003.08.27 there are some geometric planetary geocentric configurations relating to energeticful crash's and earthquakes. " "It is true, that the stress starts in mid of August .. " (The energy collapse on 2003.08.14 - called now a 'desaster' - was biggest ever happend in U.S.A. history).

Volker

Godot

Are you seriously suggesting that the power outage was caused by the present (relative) proximity of Mars to Earth?
I'm sure there's a few astrophysicists out there that would be keen to hear about if that were the case.

Armchair dissident

It is not a science. It fails to meet the criteria central to all sciences: ergo, it is not a science.
This is a false (and quite frankly, somewhat surreal) analogy. French is a language; one that when learnt to a sufficient degree enables one to converse with other people who understand French. Astrology is not a language - it is a pseudo-science which - even should one learn the structure and terminology will not enable anyone - astrologers included - to make any reliable accurate verifiable prediction. No amount of saying "but it does!" changes the fact that it does not work.
If I understand you correctly, you're claiming that I should give astrology the same credibility as I give the existence of black holes? Have you read Stephen Hawkings? Do you have any understanding whatsoever about the scientific process? When the theory of black holes was first postulated, a number of predictions were made that would be true only if, and only if black holes existed. Similarly, when general and special relativity were postulated, predictions were made that would be true if, and only if relativity was a valid scientific theory. Astrology cannot do this. Astrology can make no specific predictions (energeticful?), and fails consistently to demonstrate it's truthfulness.

James Randi is not making a claim. You are stating that astrologer can do something. All you're being asked to do is prove it. In other words, you're being asked to do precisely what science expects of any claim. Astrologers cannot prove their claim.

This is not a validated prediction - it's a post hoc falacy. If you had stated "On 15th August 2003, there will be a major power cut in the USA and Canada, caused by a fire in a power station" this would have been a validated prediction. Instead you used "geometric planetary geocentric configurations relating to energeticful crash's and earthquakes". The cop-out clauses and nonsense phrases and words are underlined. Furthermore, you originally bought this "prediction" up in regard to earthquake prediction - thus the term earthquake. You were not predicting a power cut on the 15th, you were predicting an earthquake on the 27th!

Volker.Doormann

If you read back in this thread about Mars proximity to Earth in this month and crashes, you will find absolute nothing claimed by me on this fact! The distance fact was assumed from Relative Newcomer to play a role here: Relative Newcomer wrote an 2003.08.08:

" It would have been more timely if I'd found this a few days ago... [ qoute ] Mars' extraordinarily close approach to Earth will culminate on 27 August 2003, when the red planet will come within 35 million miles (or 56 million kilometers) of Earth, its nearest approach to us in almost 60,000 years. At that time, Mars should appear to be approximately 85 times brighter in the sky than it does ordinarily. http://www.snopes.com/science/mars.asp [ /quote ].

I never have spoken about this distance relations.
But i have spoken a great number of times in this thread about angular distances,, what are angles in degrees and no distances in meters, for that this angular distances have a meaning in astrology (and earthquake triggering).

I have written this: "‘Around the date of 2003.08.27 there are some geometric planetary geocentric configurations relating to energeticful crash's and earthquakes." .. "It is true, that the stress starts in mid of August, but it seems, that this is enhanced +- 2 days to the 'due date'"

The interpretations, which can be made, are related only to the geometric configuration regarding the so called opposition of several planets, where the opposition of Mars as a measured angle of 180° to the Sun is included. The planets, which are involved additionally in oppositions around days of 2000.08.27 are Mars, Uranus on the one direction and Moon, Sun, Jupiter and Venus on the opposite direction. This amount of oppositions are known by astrologers as a configuration, which is related to that above given interpretation; not the proximity of Mars.
Because of the slow movement of planets, this configuration is also valid since the mid of August and as I have argued on this I have nothing as basis as this astronomical data:

14.8.2003 22:00:00 UT delta t: 65.308608 sec jd (ET) = 2452866.417423
Ecl. obl. 23°26'25.2917 23°26'19.7543 (true, mean)
Nutation -0° 0'12.6085 0° 0' 5.5373 (dpsi, deps)
ecl. long. ecl. lat. Dist (AU)
Sun 21 le 41'49.8873 -0° 0' 0.6674 1.012903271
Moon 24 pi 44'31.5735 -4°21'56.2235 0.002621589
Mercury 19 vi 4'20.0266 -1°51'13.6471 0.900780503
Venus 20 le 38'24.7362 1°14'57.9231 1.730408612
Mars 8 pi 23'52.5419 -6°38'14.7965 0.383563707
Jupiter 27 le 16'46.8525 0°48'47.7757 6.377495518
Saturn 8 cn 55'53.9028 -0°45'13.2054 9.748235468
Uranus 1 pi 12'59.9688 -0°47'28.2382 19.030013581
Neptune 11 aq 30'29.5170 -0° 0' 2.5577 29.081230329
Pluto 17 sa 17'19.5768 9°14'47.9875 30.237137768
sid. time : 14:35:38 armc : 218°54'30"

... where the distances (Dist) in AU have no astrological meaning. But some planetary aspects in this mid of August - drawn from this data - have a meaning (for example Sun/Venus Conjunction, Pluto/Mercury Square). This, and only this angular aspects were the base of that, what I have written: "‘Around the date of 2003.08.27 there are some geometric planetary geocentric configurations relating to energeticful crash's and earthquakes." .. "It is true, that the stress starts in mid of August, but it seems, that this is enhanced +- 2 days to the 'due date'" .

I have no idea, what in detail will happen next days until the end of the month, but it will be stress and all that crashes as an effect known as related to this planetary configuration .

Volker

Volker.Doormann

I think, that before you can claim this, you must show any competence to judge on this. Because you not have shown this competence, who cares about.Astrology is a language of symbols; all astrologers in the world can make conversation on exact this symbols. If you do not know about this, who cares about your claims. Where is the proof? (!)

Armchair dissident

What competence? How have I not demonstrated competance to know what constitutes science? Because I've studied computer science? Because I'm studying philosophy? Because I read a lot on astronomy and physics? This somehow makes me incompetent to state that astrology is not a science?

Okay, let me re-state: astrology does not sit within the boundaries of what I accept as scientific. This I reason thus: astrology makes the claim that events on Earth can be predicted by the motions of the planets in the solar system. Astrology has not been able to demonstrate that this claim is true. The corollary to this claim is that since events on Earth can be predicted by the motions of planets, it follows that there is a causal relationship: that the motions of the planets within the solar system affect events on Earth. Astrology has failed to demonstrate that this claim is true. Further, this claim is confounded by what is currently known and demonstrated to be true about the physical laws found in nature.

Is that clear? Is that sufficiently "competent". :banghead:

Let's do this again: I'm not making a claim. I do not doubt that astrology has it's own structure and terms - indeed I stated as much. It is not, however, a language. It uses it's own language to justify it's claims, but it is not a language. You're analogy was absurd. :banghead:

Exactly! You cannot prove your claims! Astrology cannot prove it's claims! You are making a claim that you cannot prove, but expect the rest of the world to say "hey, that's okay". The rest of the world does not need to prove anything. The evidence so far is that astrology is pseudoscientific quakery. I reason this thus: Astrology claims that events on Earth can be predicted by observing the motions of planets. Predictions made by astrologers are consistently incorrect, with a success rate no better than that provided by chance. Furthermore, the claims made by astrology are so devoid of content that those claims that do appear correct appear so only after the fact using post hoc reasoning. :banghead:

Volker.Doormann

EOD

Armchair dissident

So you agree you cannot prove your claims. Finally!

Volker.Doormann

"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." - Søren Kierkegaard (1813-55)

Tourette Syndrome (TS) is a neurological disorder characterized by tics -- involuntary, rapid, sudden movements or vocalizations that occur repeatedly in the same way. Diagnostic criteria include:

- Both multiple motor and one or more vocal tics present at some time, although not necessarily simultaneously;
- The occurrence of tics many times a day (usually in bouts) nearly every day or intermittently throughout the span of more than one year;
- Periodic changes in the number, frequency, type and location of the tics, and in the waxing and waning of their severity. Symptoms can sometimes disappear for weeks or months at a time;
- Onset before the age of 18.

members.tripod.com/~tourette13/

A man, born 1962.02.26 in Germany has send an e-mail to me. He is suffering on this Tourette Syndrom. I have never seen him, and I have send him the analysis output of my astrological program, which is to be find on the web:

"Hello Volker! Only today, I have time for to answer your Mail. The main reason: It did me speechless. Ibs. the attached to horoscope applies each sentence to me in practical in completely unbelievable manner - in all of the inconsistency, that are in me and with which I have also a little problem. Now, where this, as I could have written down this ever myself, stands "more clearly" and more correctly black on white, it essentially more simply falls for me, me in my whole inconsistency accepts - and every time, if I read through this Mail, new nuances become clear for me. I believe that I must read the Mail even many times in order to be able to understand me better - then this seems to the point of all. Thank you therefore for what you did for me, - even if not at all words can express the gratitude feeling, that I have at the moment.
Many greetings
X.X.X."

I have a lot of such feedback to show. Skeptics never have shown anything except ignorance to facts and personal arrogance to persons. This skeptics syndrome is obvious, if it is easier to get an atom back from a black hole, as an acknowledge of facts by skeptics. Then it is wise to end a discussion.

"A diamond was laying in the street covered with dirt.
Many fools passed by.
Someone who knew diamonds picked it up."
(Kabir 1398-1518 C.E.)

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge; it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." Charles Darwin, Introduction, The Descent of Man (1871).

Volker