Astronomy & Astrology (Page 4) brassinpockets: no it is the answer. you are attepting to measure the circumferance of an orange with a ruler. its bad science and a skewed and comfounded results... like. weigh some air with a postal scale  CoIin: How can you prove all samples of copper conduct electricity without testing every sample of copper in the universe - past, present and future/ brassinpockets: SiSZ. yes, i believe you are right. readers often do BUT we can't say for sure. Thats also a correlation..... there are no controled variables here. and no matched group CoIin: And what's all this got to do with astrology anyway? I wanna know when I'm gonna get laid again CoIin: By the way... @ Corvin "But we CAN see subatomic particles... or more accurately, we can detect them." Hmm, sorry to say you're on mighty shaky ground here, We certainly don't SEE subatomic particles; their existence is inferred. There's a BIG difference. brassinpockets: didn't heizenberg, use the location of the subatomic partical as proff of his " uncertyaity priciple? That is.. it was WHEREVER he looked? or was look used as a simile for 'sought'?  StuckInTheSixties: brass, your initial entry into this thread was: "brassinpockets: well. before we had the empirical method, the world was run using astrology., and it worked pretty well.... there has to be a validity to it." Repeating the critical phrase: "... there has to be a validity to [astrology]. React to this, please: Astrology, as applied to the individual, is based upon the spacial location of the individual at the time of birth relative to the heavenly bodies (including Earth). People are frequently born in the same location, at the same time, as other people. This happens in the maternity wards of hospitals, particularly big hospitals in cities. Great care is taken in the recording of this information, and it is easily accessible, so analysis is very easy. If astrology is valid, if it has any meaning, there should be easily discernible parallels in the lives of those born in the same place at the same time. Yet, there isn't. There are no more parallels in their lives as there would be with any other randomly chosen other people. So how can astrology be valid? brassinpockets: how can half of what einstein asserted, in the 60s be valid......... yet al ot is. it took us a long time to develope the tools to measure his ideas. I mean; Atoms? WHAT nonsence! people made up of silly particles of energy the noive of the dude to suggest I am not a solid.. yet he was rihgt, not a freaking solid thing here. Cool , huh? CoIin: Well, scientists working within a particular paradigm tend to commit themselves to the paradigm, if not to its "truth" then at least to its empirical adequacy. I dunno how Heisenberg arrived at his uncertainty principle. Hey!! Someone said "I don't know!!"  brassinpockets: and we are pact to science and the empirical method is reserved for the natural. not the supernatual...... Decarte neatly particioned it between the church and the scientists ( see Cartesian priciple" The church was to handle the unseen. and science only the seen brassinpockets: dute maybe there are 'particles" it doesn't mean we know what thye are or where to find them. it took us HOW long to find what we THINK, might be the HIGGS CoIin: If the "supernatural" has any observable or detectable effects on nature, then the empirical method could be brought to bear on it. If not, why even talk about it? "About that which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence" brassinpockets: well no. thtas the natual...... nature= natural and why tak about it.. because we have to have a jumping off point to FIND it CoIin: @ Brass What you say may in fact be true But I get the impression you haven't a clue why. It's just a catchy line you've read somewhere. CoIin: If the supernatural can have no effect on nature (as I believe) then we can stop all silly talk of "miracles" brassinpockets: ummm I didn't buddy... look at Renee Decart...... greater minds than yours and mind came to this postulates I am NOT the smartest human in the world and I am not going to challange the long dead or the scientific community. but please contact Dr Hawkings or NASA, and get back to me on it. KK brassinpockets: colin. he devised the ieals of how and where to appliy the empirical method. SEE Cartesian Split Better you. why not scroll back and read what has been posted so i don't have to repost...... I am not the best typist.THANKS, you a pal brassinpockets: oo be careful buddy mine, the car accidenyt faries can visit u also. and you assume I am male. so not so. now don't you feel silly? CoIin: Well, he was involved, so were many others. No one these days uses the methods of Descartes, Bacon, Newton, etc They were even confused about their own methods What's your point? CoIin: Um, I was gonna attempt to prove that you're not male, but a sage informed me that it's impossible brassinpockets: ccllin whta is yours. you got you posts in here. do u understand the debate. or do u simply want to debate. it would seem that way | Science Chat Room 2 People Chatting Similar Conversations |