Astronomy & Astrology (Page 2) brassinpockets: because the empirical tool ( observation, measurement and repat) are meant for the natural world, not the 'super natural.. like you can't use them to prove or diprove god cause we don't knw what god is.. (see Renee DeCarte) google is your friend  Geoff: Descartes was a hack. He, wrongly, assumed that there was some special substance in the mind that made it different from other matter.  StuckInTheSixties: To Brass: But then again, you and Renee could be totally full of crap. You can't disprove that, can you? (Edited by StuckInTheSixties) brassinpockets: well I know.Decate was an ego in a pair of pants. he also claimed the soul was locakede in the pineal gland animlas didn't have a soul because they didn't have a pineal gland........ Yeah they do, he knew it. but wanted to make like he knew something. But back to the original discussion......... you can apply enpirical method is you don't know what it is you are looking for StuckInTheSixties: That's convenient hackery. That allows you to posit anything you want, and legitimize it simply by saying that a rational person doesn't know what to look for. Geoff: **Beep beep beep** Actually, I do know what to look for, and I've found it. Thanks to my trusty bullshit detector. brassinpockets: Geof....... ok go finfd god and we can test it I'm thinking you guys juts want to argue StuckInTheSixties: Your philosophical approach allows you to say anything you want. That's an invitation to an argument for any rational person. Geoff: Personally, I'd rather debate the evidence, since this is the science forum. Surely evidence should come into it somewhere, rather than merely being brushed aside. brassinpockets: dude.I have the sheepshin hows about you define, for me, the steps behind empiracl method and its goal? Geoff: Under the context of the thread, it would be to create a double-blind test of a sample grouping to determine under objective conditions whether or not those stars and planets utilised in various schools of astrology have any bearing on their lives in line with those predictions made by said astrological school. However, since it is quite obviously hokum, you'd have a really hard time getting funding for such a study. Geoff: And actually no, the rational person is involved in three different conversations at once, priority was not given to debunking astrology. brassinpockets: well I can't say its hokum......... but I meant the chalange for ZZ top here. His asserted that 'empirical method' was so type brainless philosophy StuckInTheSixties: I can. It's hokum. And lashing out with attempted insults on one's physical appearance doesn't bolster your argument. It just shows that you result to attempts of petty insults on one's physical appearance. Geoff: The evidence in this case would be proven (rather than anecdotal) events which in each subjects life which were accurately and definitely predicted by the astrological method. This would mean that each day, week, month, each subject would have to be given an astrological prediction. They would then need to monitored throughout the period within which the prediction was due to happen. It would then be determined if the prediction had any validity. For accuracy a 'control group' would need to be created. Which had 'false' astrological reading (i.e. those made up at random, although how these would differ from the 'real' astrological predictions I don't know) to ensure that neither the testers nor the subjects read too much into the prediction. brassinpockets: not lashing out at your appearance dude... I am resp[onding yhou your insult...... like i am pulling this out of the air. listen sweetie. you can't prove a negative... thats a long extablisted truth. you into Hot Tuna, man? | Science Chat Room 1 Person Chatting Similar Conversations |
