Re: Texas murderers' chart factors

<Stevepppp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1bc7ccf9-cb0e-4f0a-b7d9-b408a9db604a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I've been trying to prove/disprove astrology for years.

RM: No one can prove or disprove 'astrology' as a whole because it
contains a lot of mythology which is merely a language to keep us on
the same page and focus on the same things.

It's a bit like the mythology used by Macintosh and later Microsoft
where "folders" and "Trash bins" were placed on computers for the
storage of do***ents. People think they can see 'do***ents' inside
folders and Trash bins but it's only an illusion. There's nothing in
either of them except illusions of do***ents.

It's the same with Chinese medicine and indigenous people's stories;
many parts of them are logical inventions to help people memorise the
sequences that are involved in dealing with certain situations, so it
is pointless to try and prove or disprove things that were never meant
to be proved or disproved.

If we're going to try and prove or disprove anything in astrology, it
needs to be something that has been claimed in a specific manner.
If that is not done then it's dead-easy for anyone to say "You didn't
disprove what I said because I didn't SAY that". That's what happens
constantly with skeptics - they keep pretending they have debunked
things in astrology that we didn't say.

Now, as it turns out, there is nothing much in astrology that CAN be
proved or disproved because we don't have any specfic claims that
can be tested. If we did, then someone, somewhere would be able to
quote one of them verbatim.

It's ok for astrologers to say "We can keep clients happy" or "We
can astonish clients with our readings". That is (almost) a clear-cut
claim, which has never been clearly stated in print by astrologers,
but no one is interested in proving it with honest counting (the
scientific method) because the answer is patently clear. Skeptics
would agree wholeheartedly that (by and large) we can do that,
however it has no bearing on whether the movements of celestial
bodies have got anything to do with any of it.

Even if a researcher found something solid which corresponded
closely with astrological theory, it still wouldn't sup****t any clear
cut claim because (as I said earlier) there ARE no specific claims
that can be proved. For example a researcher discovered
something like "People have a greater chance of marrying a person
with their Venus on their Ascendant than chance would allow".

It sounds good, but if anyone jumped up and down and said
"Yaaay, that's what we've said all along!" they would be
lying - because we haven't said any such thing, nor can it be
quoted from any astrology text book.

> Steve

Ray