posted March 11, 2014 01:41 PM            

quote:

---

This all started with me saying that you believe in Astrology, which is not based on science, and then you went into investigative mode. You did not say, "I know that." This means either you thought it was or that you didn't know whether it was or not. We are back where we started. You believe in a pseudoscience, but you did not know it was pseudoscientific, although I thought it would have been obvious to a mind leaning toward scientific reasoning.

---

More of the same type of projection you've been doing the last several days.
Not saying, "I know that," doesn't imply whether I knew it or not. As I told you, I hadn't looked into it. From this, you assumed that I was making a full scale defense of the scientific nature of astrology. I told you what was obvious to me, which is that perfect strangers confirm my analysis. That doesn't make it scientific, and, in fact, if the studies you posted are true, then this is merely chance. None of this establishes my ability to be scientifically minded. You're trying to pass it off as such, but you haven't dealt with any of the numerous premises I've rejected based upon sound reason.

posted March 11, 2014 03:56 PM            

quote:

---

I just can't fathom that you do not know off-the-cuff that Astrology cannot fit the parameters of science.

---

So when scientists have from time to time decided to test astrology scientifically, you'd have told them that their scientific minds should already know the truth without having tested it?

I can't fathom how you fail to grasp these very simple, and very obvious concepts. How would one establish that astrology is not a matter of science without having tested it?

posted March 11, 2014 07:14 PM            

From your second post on page 3:

Analysis of the research was carried out by Geoffrey Dean, a scientist and former astrologer based in Perth, Australia, and Ivan Kelly, a psychologist at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada.

quote:

---

Generally, it has been skeptics who have tested Astrology, because scientists are aware that there is no known mechanism by which it can work

---

And they might wonder how astrology continues to fool people, right? There's nothing as frustrating as "Believers," right? (Maybe Beliebers, but I digress) Simply having the idea that it shouldn't work shouldn't be motivation enough to test it. There has to be that confounding element that begs to be addressed. At least that's my opinion of what would have to be true of some such person.

quote:

---

That everything is energy...so the fact that a layman can't prove astrology scientifically does NOT equal astrology being unscientific, it just means it has not been scientifically demonstrated.

---

posted March 11, 2014 11:47 PM            

It's not ridiculous in the slightest an astrologer to design, helm, or provide input into how a scientific test on astrology should be constructed. Perhaps you think it would be a conflict of interest, but who better than an astrologer to define areas where there might be contention?

And I wasn't saying that scientists are stupid. If all you know about astrology is that horoscopes exist, it's going to be SUPER easy to disprove their validity. None of us would be impressed by that debunking, nor would we think that it was an all-encompassing test of astrology.

quote:

---

If only you were capable of being as critical of the climate research instead of taking it unquestioningly at face value simply because the authorities say so.

---

posted March 12, 2014 11:41 AM            

quote:

---

It's the alarmism that colors the data and its interpretation that's not science.

---

No. That's a justification you give yourself in order to believe that the science isn't science.

quote:

---

And you don't seem to mind it. You don't call them out on it.

---

Yeah, and I'm not going to start simply because you think it would give my opinion more integrity. I don't mind if they overstated, and then restated based upon new information. That's the way of science. It's not something you can hang an argument on.

quote:

---

You have never once called out a Liberal on anything.

---

If you don't have a sense of my personal integrity already, then you can just color me surprised, because you obviously should.

Moreover, the whole issue is rather superficial. I can't even think of a time when you've criticized Republicans, but that's never been a particular point of focus for me. Even if you have criticized Republicans, it didn't stop you from continuing to vote for them, did it? Which means that your criticism amounted to nothing in the overall scope of your view. Right? It only made you feel like you were giving your perspective some credence. It contributed to your feeling of having principles. It didn't materially change anything. You're a fan of illusion, of conflating data into a meaning unsubstantiated from that data.

quote:

---

You dug up and posted one very poor past example as your attempt to refute your bias.

---

What made it a poor example versus an exemplary example? Your judgment?

quote:

---

Kerry recently likened CO2 to a weapon of mass destruction and told an entire country they will sink into the ocean. Do you support that BS? Your only response was that he means well.

---

If I were to tell you before you used my car that I've never changed the oil in the year-and-a-half that I've owned it, would you think I was being irrationally alarmist about my own car? No. You'd probably think that I was dumb, and wouldn't be surprised if the engine ceased up, and stopped working for you. Were my actions towards you anything other than well meaning?

quote:

---

Tampered data or not, funding creating a bias or not, the unchecked alarmism by your party where they pretty much make up anything at will to create fear and panic is not science, and it is unforgivable.

---

I'm gonna give you a on that. I don't suppose I need to remind you about made up WMDs in Iraq, and how we desperately needed to get in there as a matter of national security. Or how about that NSA spying? Why was that started? Under whom?

Further, as we've discussed, CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for potentially thousands of years. There's no sense of whether we could even stem the tide there. The Montreal Protocol is remarkably similar to this situation, and the world didn't take issue with taking action on that. It had the unintended consequence of helping to stop the warming. It's one of the myriad and growing number of reasons for the "pause" in warming. So it's very likely that we will continue to see things happen as a result of global warming. Stating as much, to me, doesn't seem like creating fear and panic.

In fact, I don't see much fear or panic at all despite this pronouncement you've made.

quote:

---

Yet you either turn a blind eye and deaf ear, or you excuse it.

---

posted March 12, 2014 05:15 PM            

It's not "lying" any more than Bush was "lying" to get us into Iraq.

quote:

---

You seriously credit that for the pause?

---

What? The car analogy? No. The car analogy was to illustrate that Kerry's pronouncement could only be well-intentioned.

quote:

---

Nothing we have done has made a dent in it.

---

I take it you weren't curious enough to look up the Montreal Protocol with regard to climate change or global warming.

quote:

---

You don't even know how irrational you sound!

---

You're right. I don't. In fact, I never get that feedback from anybody except Conservatives here. Anyone else care to chime in about how irrational I sound? I have received a lot of feedback that would go the other way, and I've received a good deal of it right where you'd see it.

quote:

---

And you call yourself a logical thinker? That's the problem. You don't think. You keep your thoughts within the narrow confines of what you are told to believe.

---

You keep making the allegation, but you also keep failing to back it up.

quote:

---

I've criticized Republicans many times here, Mr. Selective Memory, especially Bush, and yes, I vote Republican, because not a single Democrat is worthy of my vote

---

Thanks for confirming that I am yet again right.

quote:

---

I do not ascribe to their Liberal math, Liberal science, Liberal economics, anti-business, and many other screwy thoughts about a host of topics.

---

And yet you hope to establish something about my thinking. You're illustrating for us in very clear terms what you are and aren't open-minded towards. Is it a leap to ascertain from this data that you materially project the way that you think about things (I do not ascribe to their Liberal math, Liberal science, etc) to people that you interact with. Is it not true, that you think that my thinking is exactly the same as yours but in reverse (that I do not ascribe to their Conservative math, Conservative science, etc.)?

quote:

---

The worst Republican is better than the greatest Democrat any day. I'm sure you agree in the reverse.

---

Confirmation of my suspicion.

No, I haven't. Nor have I watched Michael Moore's movie. Nor have I read any book by any person who can only see the bad in the opposing party. I disagree with people that take a black and white view of things, because when you think the truth only belongs to one party while millions in the opposing party disagree it's a pretty safe bet that there is truth on both sides. - Myself: http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/001274.html

If I've come to the point where it seems that I no longer think this way, it's only because I've subjected myself to years (almost 10 now) of responding to the ridiculous notions of Conservatives. Surely, all Conservatives aren't ridiculous, and certainly I don't think a lot of Conservatives would act in real life as they do here. Just as there are Conservatives that can get along with Hollywood, there are Conservatives that can get along in many seemingly Liberal settings, and vice versa.

quote:

---

The problem is that I can admit to the Republicans' flaws. You, however, will never admit to any flaw on the Left. At least you haven't.

---

I think you're trying to open up another avenue for which you think you have a case. This thread thus far has been a complain-fest regarding what you think about how I think.

posted March 12, 2014 05:39 PM            

quote:

---

I think it's more about you being Liberal and the climate being a Liberal project rather than you agreeing to it for the science.

---

That's the problem. You view it from an ideological standpoint rather than a rational standpoint. You made a snap decision about it, and you've held the line ever since.
I would think that this would remove any doubt from any person's mind about whether you are in a position to talk about science.

quote:

---

Well, I used to be a Liberal, and I can tell you exactly how most Liberals think.

---

Except that you can't, because you can't seem to separate how other people think from how you think. You think everyone is exactly like you. I think there's a whole range of people that are unlike you in the way that they think.

posted March 12, 2014 08:32 PM            

Magical is really just Spiritual. Something undefined by our current body of scientific knowledge takes molecules and has them hold a certain shape--from a table to a plant to a human. These molecules are being replaced at certain intervals of quantum time, with new ones replacing those that leave in a sort of flowing form of energy. So, we are all basically just ever-changing flowing energy in a flux of nonexistance. But the molecules that came from the nearby table know to form a Randall while passing by, as do my molecules know to form a table or a rose on that table...and these are all molecules that were formerly of stardust. Isn't quantum physics amazing? As a layperson, I am dumbfounded. We can observe at the quantum level things that we have no way of explaining (yet). Like twin particles, for example. One twin particle can be here at Point A, while the other is at Point B on the other side of the universe, and whatever affects one particle will simultaneously (Lexigrams to NO TIME) affect its twin. Distance seems to be no barrier at the quantum level (where it should logically make MORE of a difference, since things are so tiny). It astounds me.

For the most part, we are all searching for the same thing--happiness. So elusive. so fleeting. So "mercurial." (I had to throw that one in there). Happiness wants to be chased. For example, if almost all of my unhappiness is due to a lack of money (money is a meaningful subject for us Cappies in a variety of ways), it would seem that having lots of money would bring happiness. Logically, that should be the case. And it is nice to have enough to meet our obligations and have enough extra to breathe a sigh of relief and release the stress that we Cappies face on an almost daily basis. But then if we (in general, not just Cappies) get a lot of money, we aren't any happier. The problems we had are solved. But the money now brings on other issues and problems we would never have known or had to face otherwise. And though some would say Love is the answer, it, too, can bring its flip side. So, what is the key to happiness then? I think humans are meant to serve. Only then can we be truly happy. While some people are genuinely self-serving and selfish (for whatever reason), I think humanity in general and as a whole is coded to give of themselves in some way to the service of others. For me, part of this is facilitated by LL. And we see it every day here when strangers help each other. LL is only a tiny miniscule example that really isn't worthy of such a magnanimous analogy, but it's my little tiny way of giving back. We all have a specific purpose, and even when not knowing what that is, we can still find happiness on that journey of seeking, because through the act of serving others in some way (be it art or music or helping to make others' lives better), we fulfill our coded purpose and, in turn, we receive a deep gratification at the Soul level. As such, happiness cannot be sought or chased or bargained for. It meets you halfway as a natural byproduct of giving to others.

I don't often wax philosophical here, but lately I have witnessed more than my fair share of impossible (I'M POSSIBLE) miracles, and today I just feel very in awe of and connected to whatever the Source of that is.

posted March 13, 2014 01:03 PM            

And...You just made my argument, everything is energy and everything is connected. I see it a both magic and advanced science...which is slowly seeping into the mainstream. Magic is nowt but intuited practice of scientifically provable principles.