In article <20000817032103.12702.00000333 at ng-ct1.aol.com>,
ashlesha9 at aol.com (Ashlesha 9) wrote:
> >I've read several studies based on sidereal astrology
>> Why did you ask what sidereal astrology was then? Incidentally, I'd like
> to
> read them, are they online?
I asked what the difference was between astrology and sidereal astrology
because of the emphasis you placed on sidereal astrology as being
something more credible. After your initial reply, I understood we were
talking about the same thing. Studies on this topic can be found in
several books and scientific journals. I read them before there was an
'online' so I don't know if you can find them 'online'.
> >Anectodal
> >evidence aside, science has failed to support any causal relation
> >between heavenly bodies and human behavior.
>> Do you really think anyone takes it seriously enough to try? It should
> be
> psychologists if anyone who test its validity and they're as suspicious
> of it
> as most other scientific people are.
>> >I still miss something about the Jupiter in the sky and the frontal
> >lobe. Do you mean like gives rise to like?
>> When Jupiter is in Aries, the person seems to make impulsive and
> enthusiastic
> judgements and speculations, when in Taurus, judgements and speculations
> are
> performed in a casual and pragmatic manner, and so on for each of the
> signs.
> These things are clearly observable in people. I don't know how else to
> say
> it. I don't know how the information is communicated to the individual
> from
> the planet, but I don't know a lot of things.
>> >Astrologists suggested that gravitational attraction might be an
> >explanation.
>> That's a pretty weak suggestion. It shown to be false in a single
> sentence,
> that doesn't mean there are no other explanations.
> >1) no relation has been
> >established (Until that happens a scientist is obligated in some sense
> >to NOT proceed.),
>> That's silly. If the effects are observable in human behavior, a
> scientist
> could ignore the cause of those effects until a later time when they may
> eventually become clear. A lot, maybe most, of science begins by
> observing an
> interesting effect and then seeking out its cause.
The effect isn't observable except for believers. That is why I am
interested in the science. I can convinced myself of many things if I
want to see them. Systematic observation reduces the amount of
self-emposed interpretation. If the effects of astrology are observable
then we should see them in a double blind study. The few studies where
participants and researchers were double blinded demonstrated no effect.
>>> >(The person sitting next to me as a greater gravitational effect
> >than the planets.)
>> I know.
> >. So, how would a person be convinced of such a
> >connection?
>> I told you I wasn't trying to convince you of a connection. I was asking
> for
> help in guessing, hypothetically, what neural mechanisms might give rise
> to
> hypothetical effects. Sheesh.
I understand what you've said, but for there to be a neural mechanism
one should 'guess' what it might be. Some have proposed gravity, which
you disagree with. Suggest something else. What force could drive a
neural mechanism? Let's see, we have gravity, electromagnetic, and the
strong and weak nuclear attractions. You agree it isn't gravity. How
about the other three?
> >She said many wonderful things about me (All
> >true, I might add.)
>> Did she tell you you're an idiot? Just kidding. I'm just feeling hurt
> and
> misunderstood.
I'm trying to understand, but we are coming from different traditions. I
think I am being patient and haven't pointed out the many obvious
weaknesses in your thinking. I do understand what you are asking but,
I'm not sure that you do. That is not an ad hominem attack. I am just
trying to clarify your question.
The bottom line is that two questions must be asked here in order to
proceed in, "guessing what nueral mechanisms might give rise to
hypothetical effects." (1) Is there an effect? and, (2) What mechanism
could explain such an effect? You've assume there is an effect, I'm not
sure. You've skipped the first question and gone on the second.
> I told you I wasn't trying to convince you of a connection. I was asking
> for
> help in guessing, hypothetically, what neural mechanisms might give rise
> to
> hypothetical effects. Sheesh.
If there is no connection, there is no effect.
--
Remove nospam from address to send me a direct email.
