Alphax wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Michael P. Hopcroft wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Michael P. Hopcroft wrote:
>First of all, the man is an ASTROLOGER. That doesn't bode well for
>his logical capacities in the first place unless he's an outright
>fraud. "Serious discusssion of astrology" is no more possible than
>serious discussion of the belief that every object in the Universe
>is a uniform shade of purple.
>
>
That's a shamefully ignorant comment of the kind that can be expected
from those who believe more in scientism than science.
I have no idea what 'scientism" is, but I do know that the idea that
randomly placed thermonuclear reactors dozens, hundreds and thousands
of light-years away have a direct influence on what happens to human
beings on Earth is illogical to the point of delusion. Even if they
were capable of thought, which is insanity in itself, how could they
possibly care?
According to Oxford scientism is the "excessive belief in the power of
scientific knowledge and techniques." In many instances it takes on the
characteristics of a religion.
You began by making a wild comment about astrology and astrologers, and
now you want to compound the issue with your creationist premise that
someone has been going around placing thermonuclear reactors just so
that you can set up some kind of straw man argument.
Firstly, the fact that Michael wrote "random" is anti-creationist;
secondly, you might want to see [[Star]].
Ahh, but the verb "to place" is creationist. And if we accept the idea
of a creator it logically follows that that entity should be capable of
placing things randomly. Why shouldn't God have the right to
participate in a crap game?
There's no mention of astrology in [[Star]], which is just as well,
despite the etymology of the word "astrology". The word "random" does
not appear in the article either. On the other hand, astrologers in
general are not likely to be interested in thermonuclear reactors.
With all the traffic on this subject, I'm not sure
if this page has come
up before, but in case it hasn't:
http://www.petitmorte.net/phoenix/wollmann.html
That's one of those unfortunate yellow on black pages that are always a
problem to read. The whole thing seems like one interminable flame war
with not much being said that has any value. In that sort of context
anything which it says for or against astrology is not going to be very
convincing or credible.
I suggest you have a bit of a look around the rest of
the site as well.
"Kook of the Millenium" wasn't the only award he won.
I'm not interested in the debate over the individual kook's behaviour at
all. Such matters appear all too frequently on the list. The phrase
"the man is an ASTROLOGER" with the word in all capitals did catch my
eye. That is irrelevant to the man's status as a kook.
The persistence of astrology through the ages suggests to me that there
are underlying germs of truth within it, but these are obscured by a
tremendous amount of unfounded claims. Thus, specific claims that can
be scientifically supported are very few, and some would even say that
there are none at all. But failure to prove is not disproof.
Unfortunately, people who claim to be promoting science make contrary
statements that are even more preposterous than the claims made by
astrologers. They impute ideas to astrology that were never expressed
by the astrologers. They than make the perfectly accurate comment that
the idea in question is ridiculous, and use that as evidence that all of
astrology is nonsense. That's a straw man argument. It is falacious
and unscientific. The use of imputed ideas seems typical of people who
have no clue about the subject.
Ec