Quote:
psych_fck said: So mercury is currently retrograde in Libra until June 11th. Mercury rules all forms of communication including but not limited to istening, speaking, learning, reading, editing, researching, negotiating, selling, buying ect. When this planet retrogrades, these areas tend to get scrambled or spin out of control, mercury is not actually moving backwards but appears to be. when a planet retrogrades, astrologically it is in a resting or sleeping state. are any of you guys into astrology? I've been having a lot of issues with communication lately especially technology in particular.... let me know your thoughts. I know some of you think astrology is bullshit but I would like to hear your experiences and opinions !
This will clear things up for you I'm sure.
I meant to post this as a joke, but they're actually talking about astrology stuff! Something about chaos? I didn't actually read the lyrics. I thought it was about a car when I listened to it years ago haha.
Quote:
My mercury's in retrograde
This is not the time, the time to start a new love This is not the time, the time to sign a lease Try not to worry about whats forgotten Try not to worry about whats been missed Scars on shins and scars on my knuckles Today I woke up in a basketball court Jonjo's in Sydney and he aint returning Im sitting in soho trying to stay drunk
In any bar in the world From Silverlake to Williamsburg You could pick another stranger And fall in love
My mercury's in retrograde
This is not the time, the tie to start a new love This is not the time, the time to sign a lease Try not to worry about whats forgotten Try not to worry about whats been missed Bleeding gums and veins protruding You're starting to hate all of your clothes Neumayrs in LA and she aint returning Im sleeping with people I don't even like
My mercury's in retrograde
When I say you last night I wanted to say, run away with me Away from the cynics That this could be the start of Something truly real... But all that I could say was "hey"
My mercury's in retrograde
Edited by Junior Fungus (05/30/15 01:16 AM)
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
PocketLady said: The problem is that the kind of evidence you want doesn't exist. Maybe one day science will have advanced enough to be able to explain it, but not yet. Just like a few hundred years ago no one could prove that those twinkling lights in the sky were actually stars.
No, that is not the problem. The problem is that science can only describe and predict phenomenon that are observed. Scientific theories will never be able to describe hypothesized phenomenon that are unobserved.
The observation of people seeing patterns where they don't really exist and feeling their way to conclusions has been studied scientifically. There have been experiments done, papers published and even jargon like "confirmation bias" which has entered into the common language.
You said it yourself, the evidence doesn't exist. Whatever other "kind of evidence" you are thinking of is not evidence.
I am fully aware of confirmation bias and what it is. If you read my other posts in this thread you will see that I have given an example of a suitable experiment I believe could reliably test the validity of astrology. The problem with many of the studies to date has been the limited nature of their approach, using generalised readings and trying to match people to their charts which is missing the entire point.
But just looking at studies that have been done so far, here are some quotes from the article I posted discussing the validity of one of the most famous studies refuting the validity of astrology.
"The other part of Carlson’s experiment tested 83 student volunteers to see if they could correctly choose their own natal chart interpretations written by the astrologers. Volunteers were divided into a test group and a control group. Members of the test group were each given three choices, all of the same Sun sign, one of which was interpreted from their natal chart (Carlson, 1985: 421). Similarly, each member of the control group received three choices, all of the same Sun Sign, except none of the choices was interpreted from their natal charts, although one choice was randomly selected as “correct” for the purpose of the test.
For the results of this test, Carlson shows a comparison of the frequencies of the correct chart as first, second, and third choices for the test group and the control group (again ignoring his stated protocol to combine the frequencies of the first two choices). He finds that the results are “all consistent with the scientific hypothesis” (Carlson, 1985: 424). However, he does note an unexpected result for the control group, which was able to choose the correct chart at a very high frequency. He calculates this to be at 2.34 standard deviations above chance (p = .01). Yet, because this result occurred in the control group, which was not given their own interpretations, Carlson interprets this as a “statistical fluctuation.”
Yet the size of this statistical fluctuation is so unusual as to attract skepticism, particularly in light of Carlson’s other results. It is reasonable to think that the astrologers could write good quality chart interpretations after having successfully matched charts with CPI profiles. Yet, according to Carlson’s classification, the test group tended to avoid the astrologers’ correct interpretations and choose the two random interpretations, while the control group tended to choose the selected “correct” interpretations by a wide margin, as if they, the controls, had been the actual test subjects (Ertel, 2009: 132). This raises suspicion that the data might have been switched, perhaps inadvertently, but this is unverifiable speculation (Vidmar, 2008)."
Hmmmm, doesn't anyone find this a little bit strange??
"Like the participating astrologers, the student volunteers were also given a rating test; in this case for the sample chart interpretations they were given. They were asked to rate, on a scale of 1 to 10, the accuracy of each subsection of the natal chart interpretations written by the astrologers. “The specific categories which astrologers were required to address were: (1) personality/temperment [sic]; (2) relationships; (3) education; (4) career/goals; and (5) current situation” (Carlson, 1985: 422). This test would potentially have high interest to astrologers because of the distinction it made between personality and current situation, which is a distinction that is not typically covered in personality tests. Also, the higher sensitivity of a rating test could provide insight, at least as confirmation or denial, into the extraordinary statistical fluctuation seen in the three-choice ranking test.
However, based on a few unexpected results, Carlson decided that there was no guarantee that the participants had followed his instructions for this test. “When the first few data envelopes were opened, we noticed that on any interpretation selected as a subject’s first choice, nearly all the subsections were also rated as first choice” (Carlson, 1985: 424). On the basis of this unanticipated consistency, Carlson rejected the volunteers’ rating test without reporting the results."
And this is supposed to be a fair un-biased study? If you read the whole article, it's like there was no way for the results to come out any other way.
http://astrologynewsservice.com/articles/support-for-astrology-from-the-carlson-double-blind-experiment/
-------------------- Love is from the infinite, and will remain until eternity. The seeker of love escapes the chains of birth and death. Tomorrow, when resurrection comes, The heart that is not in love will fail the test. ~ Rumi The day we start giving Love instead of seeking Love, we will have re-written our whole destiny. ~ Swami Chinmayanada Saraswatir
|