Correction of errors to last post on Vulcan

Yes, and other studies showed evidence of poisoning. The University of Lund found evidence of mass-dosage poisoning in a hair with the folicle attached in 1996. Which means it entered through the blood (http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/docs/historic.pdf).  Your point? Would you like to address the fact that Newton for example delved heavily into the occult and astrology as an obsession and not as a side-job or fundraiser? Or are you just going to continually change the subject everytime and hope noone notices that what your blanket statements are not true?

Yes, and other studies showed evidence of poisoning. The University of Lund found evidence of mass-dosage poisoning in a hair with the folicle attached in 1996. Which means it entered through the blood (http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/docs/historic.pdf).  Your point? Would you like to address the fact that Newton for example delved heavily into the occult and astrology as an obsession and not as a side-job or fundraiser? Or are you just going to continually change the subject everytime and hope noone notices that what your blanket statements are not true?

I don't particularly fancy "papers" that have absolutely no indication of authors and similar requisites. But this is not really important. The nature of things as discovered by Kepler or Newton doesn't hinge on their personal life or quest for the philosopher's stone. In other topics I spoke against ipse dixit arguments regarding Rowbotham. Don't expect me to make the same logical fallacies here. That fact that Newton or Jung spent a considerable amount of their time with astrology doesn't make it any more of a science.

And this thread has nothing to do with any of that. It is about astrology. If you would kindly not drag a thread off topic about astrology. They were astrologers of note. It doesn't make astrology true. It also does not make it false. If you'd like to discuss something of theirs in particular that you differ with feel free to post it. You cannot make blantantly false blanket statements and not expect to be called out on it.
Having said all that, this probably belongs in the science subfora and not here.

Quote from: Silverman on February 03, 2014, 08:52:39 AM

How true it is the saying that the sacred esoteric knowledge is not for the profane.

I thank you for your sanctimony.

As a matter of interest, I was born at 11:55PM on September 25 in the year of the Dog.

So... You lose.  Please don't expect a cheque in the mail any time soon.

The thought that perhaps this debate ought to be moved, crossed my mind only last night since were going off upon quite a tangent from FE, and lo and behold that's precisely what's happened, many thanks to the moderator.
What year were you born and where?

Is this a form of chronological snobbery or do you have something specific they stated that you'd wish to refute with evidence? Or do you simply not subscribe because it is no longer in vogue with Scientific Orthodoxy?

You do utilise some interesting terms I must say—most of which I'm unfamiliar with.  "Chronological snobbery"?

The point I was making is that so-called scientists' viewpoints and understanding of the sciences have changed dramatically in the intervening time period.  There were all sorts of weird and wonderful notions about then-inexplicable natural phenomena, which today seem ludicrous.

All scientists believed in one or more of those whacky ideas, even the truly smart ones who developed most of the theorems still used today.  So... the mere fact that Newton, Galileo, or Pythagoras believed in astrology is neither here nor there.  Your attempt to conflate round earth science with astrological notions is futile if you think it either denigrates science, or elevates astrology.

Scientific orthodoxy couldn't care less what's "in vogue" or not.  Why should it?  Science doesn't kowtow to fashions or pop culture.  Or need to.

Scientific orthodoxy couldn't care less what's "in vogue" or not.  Why should it?  Science doesn't kowtow to fashions or pop culture.  Or need to.

This sounds, again, romantic and noble, but is not true.

And for your education: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 04, 2014, 07:06:40 AM

Scientific orthodoxy couldn't care less what's "in vogue" or not.  Why should it?  Science doesn't kowtow to fashions or pop culture.  Or need to.

This sounds, again, romantic and noble, but is not true.

And for your education: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery

I thank you for the link.  I must admit I've never come across the term before.
 

Man I thought this was a post on Star Trek.

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 03, 2014, 09:45:48 AM

Quote from: Ski on February 03, 2014, 09:06:18 AM

Newton, Brahe, Copernicus, Galileo, Cassini, Kepler, Jung, Ptolemy, Bacon, and of course Pythagoras. I'm sure I'm missing scores, but that's a few pretty well-known names for you off the top of my head.

Uh... you do know when these guys were alive don't you?  Any names of guys that have anything at all to do with contemporary science?  You know... that haven't been dead and buried for hundreds of years LOL.

Is this a form of chronological snobbery or do you have something specific they stated that you'd wish to refute with evidence? Or do you simply not subscribe because it is no longer in vogue with Scientific Orthodoxy?

chronological snobbery?  So, would you trust a pre wheel cave man to design a nuclear power plant?

Ski was making the point that many renowned and world famous scientists, mathematicians and philosophers have delved into astrology at some stage or other, and considered it a worthwhile cause for ongoing research.

But... this "appeal to authority"—as its known—is a fallacy of irrelevance when the authority being cited is not really an authority.

The irrelevant appeal to authority is a type of genetic fallacy, which attempts to judge a belief by its origin rather than by the arguments for and against the belief.  If this belief originates with a well-known authoritative person—such as Newton or Galileo or Pythagoras—then the belief itself (in this case for astrology) is implied to be valid, at the very least.

Consequently then,  simply because a few of the greatest scientists in history believed in astrology doesn't confer upon it any credence at all in the 21st century.   Nor should it.
 

 

I didn't ask anyone to believe in astrology because of who all also believed in it. That's a farce.  I provided examples of notable people who have studied in astrology at your request.

I didn't ask anyone to believe in astrology because of who all also believed in it. That's a farce.  I provided examples of notable people who have studied in astrology at your request.

Um... yeah.  OK.  Whatever.

You said "They [famous scientists etc] were astrologers of note. It doesn't make astrology true. It also does not make it false".

And I said "But this "appeal to authority"—as its known—is a fallacy of irrelevance when the authority being cited is not really an authority".

(And let's face it, you presumably only quoted the names of those people in an effort to reinforce the notion that astrology had (has?) some widespread legitimacy as a genuine science.)

So where's your alleged "farce"?  I was simply responding with my viewpoint about astrology and the famous people who embraced it.
 
 

I'm not sure you know what an appeal to authority is, because you just quoted me as saying, "That does not make astrology true."

You do understand that astrology is a bogus practice, and has no place in the real world don't you?  It's nothing more than a bit of fun printed in the daily papers, and has no place on a site that's generally of a scientific nature (even if at times that science seems totally preposterous).

A few people here may confuse the legitimate science of astronomy with astrology, which can only muddy the waters further.

Don't you mean that astrology does not say anything about the real world and not "astrology has no place in the real world" which is false, because people clearly still have the opinion that it works? So there is a place for it in the real world.

I agree though that it does not say anything about the real world, other than what it does.

Astrophysics>Astronomy.

Don't you mean that astrology does not say anything about the real world and not "astrology has no place in the real world" which is false, because people clearly still have the opinion that it works? So there is a place for it in the real world.

Nope. The fact that misguided or delude people still believe that astrology is a genuine "science" doesn't warrant its place in a real world—the one we inhabit.  The tenets of astrology can only exist in the minds of the believers.  As do beliefs in supernatural entities (such as God) and paranormal phenomena (such as miracles).
 

Quote from: burt on March 22, 2014, 08:26:05 PM

Don't you mean that astrology does not say anything about the real world and not "astrology has no place in the real world" which is false, because people clearly still have the opinion that it works? So there is a place for it in the real world.

Nope. The fact that misguided or delude people still believe that astrology is a genuine "science" doesn't warrant its place in a real world—the one we inhabit. 

Irrelevant.

The tenets of astrology can only exist in the minds of the believers.

False.

As do beliefs in supernatural entities (such as God) and paranormal phenomena (such as miracles).

False.

Thanks for your detailed response Burt.   

Now... would you care to explain exactly why you've said what you've said—or, in this case—not said?

And remember mate; one word answers = bullshit.
 

Thanks for your detailed response Burt.   

Now... would you care to explain exactly why you've said what you've said—or, in this case—not said?

And remember mate; one word answers = bullshit.

1. Irrelevent - because it changed what you originally said to something else.

2. False - because the tenets of astrology can "exist" in anyone's mind not just those that believe it.

3. false - same again. Otherwise philosophers would not be able to engage with arguments about people's beliefs in god.

Nope.  Sorry.

A tenet is one of the principles on which a hypothesis or a theory is based. There are no hypotheses and/or theories supporting the validity of astrology.  Ergo no tenets.

And why am I not the least bit surprised to see that a flat earther believes in the notion of astrology LOL.
 

Nope.  Sorry.

A tenet is one of the principles on which a hypothesis or a theory is based. There are no hypotheses and/or theories supporting the validity of astrology.  Ergo no tenets.

And why am I not the least bit surprised to see that a flat earther believes in the notion of astrology LOL.

You are an idiot. This is what is called the definitist fallacy. The thing that is in dispute is not whether there are astrological tenets (in the way that you define them), which you tacitly assumed existed when you said:

"The tenets of astrology can only exist in the minds of the believers. "

other wise what does "only exist" mean here?...erm...not exist?


So you are denying that astrological tenets can exist at all, and not that they  just exist (or "only exist") in people's minds (which is the thing in dispute), but rather that astrology does not have any tenets, because tenets are "hypotheses and/or theories supporting the validity" of some theory, now to go along with your new claim (by redifining the word tenet", which is wrong anyway because a tenet is a "principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy" it does not necessarily have to make the theory valid.), you have just defined astrological tenets and lots of other tenets out of existence, which is not what you were trying to argue, and so you have moved the posts of your argument, which you keep doing, in order not be refuted - they are called conventionalist ad hoc stratagems.

The conclusion here is that

astrological tenets cannot exist, but they only exist in people's minds

they do exist and they don't exist [p ^ ¬p]

 

And why am I not the least bit surprised to see that a flat earther believes in the notion of astrology LOL.

I don't believe in astrology and I am not a "Flat Earther" LOL.

You are an idiot.

Ahhh... the typical fallback of the flat earthers when they're backed into a corner LOL.

The good old, no fail, guaranteed-to-win-an-argument ad hominem attack.

Well done my friend.  You've just further reinforced my opinions of flat earther logic.   It's an oxymoron.   

I don't believe in astrology and I am not a "Flat Earther" LOL.

Yeah, yeah, yeah Burt..... sure thing mate.  And I'm the flying nun.   
 

Quote from: burt on March 26, 2014, 09:37:14 PM

You are an idiot.

Ahhh... the typical fallback of the flat earthers when they're backed into a corner LOL.

The good old, no fail, guaranteed-to-win-an-argument ad hominem attack.

Well done my friend.  You've just further reinforced my opinions of flat earther logic.   It's an oxymoron.   

So you concentrate on the weakest part of my argument. And not the part where I completely tore you a new one. Yeah, you have loads of intellectual honesty. I backed up my claim that you were an idiot, now back up your claim that I am an FE or that I believe in astrology, goatboy.

Ahhh... the typical fallback of the flat earthers when they're backed into a corner LOL.

How can I be back into the corner.

1. It is your claim that is in dispute, not mine.
2. I have not given you a position to back me in a corner over
3. the fact that you think I am arguing from an FE point of view backs up the fact that you have no idea what I am attacking in your argument, because of this you are trying to shift the burden, because you are confused or stupid.

I backed up my claim that you were an idiot, now back up your claim that I am an FE or that I believe in astrology, goatboy.

Whoaaaa..... the ad homs are flying thick and fast now!  Well done Burt; an excellently tabled argument against me.   

Flat earth desperation anyone?
 

Quote from: burt on March 26, 2014, 10:10:13 PM

I backed up my claim that you were an idiot, now back up your claim that I am an FE or that I believe in astrology, goatboy.

Whoaaaa..... the ad homs are flying thick and fast now!  Well done Burt; an excellently tabled argument against me.   

Flat earth desperation anyone?

Concentrate: I have taken out the insult (not ad hominem, because it was not part of my argument, instead ancillary to it), so that you can focus on the argument

This is what is called the definitist fallacy. The thing that is in dispute is not whether there are astrological tenets (in the way that you define them), which you tacitly assumed existed when you said:

"The tenets of astrology can only exist in the minds of the believers. "

other wise what does "only exist" mean here?...erm...not exist?


So you are denying that astrological tenets can exist at all, and not that they  just exist (or "only exist") in people's minds (which is the thing in dispute), but rather that astrology does not have any tenets, because tenets are "hypotheses and/or theories supporting the validity" of some theory, now to go along with your new claim (by redifining the word tenet", which is wrong anyway because a tenet is a "principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy" it does not necessarily have to make the theory valid.), you have just defined astrological tenets and lots of other tenets out of existence, which is not what you were trying to argue, and so you have moved the posts of your argument, which you keep doing, in order not be refuted - they are called conventionalist ad hoc stratagems.

The conclusion here is that

astrological tenets cannot exist, but they only exist in people's minds

they do exist and they don't exist [p ^ ¬p]

 

Concentrate my friend, the above is my argument, have you got any rebuttals?

burt, I think you broke ausGeoff!

I think burt is a flat Earther in the closet. 

burt, I think you broke ausGeoff!

Broken?   Broken.....?

Burt thoroughly destroyed me Space Cowgirl.  I may never walk unaided on two legs again!