Re: [evol-psych] Dr. Eben Alexander: 'The Science of Heaven'
- Yes, I agree with Annaand...the issue is IMO that an astrologer predicts FOR the other (the client, coachee, the wider public).This in itself is already potentially murky.But there may be more:it doesn't adress the client's "felt need" for such a prediction, for what is at best a likelihood.When might that need be the real problem?Maarten
--- In email@example.com, "Anna" <pantheon@...> wrote:
> Edgar, I happen to know astrology quite well.
> I do not think it is a total bullshit. Rather, astrological prediction shows how prediction shapes future events.
> So be careful what you predict!
> From: Edgar Owen
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 5:13 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Dr. Eben Alexander: 'The Science of Heaven'
> Total BS.
> Astrology has been exhaustively studied and conclusively falsified.
> And it has NOTHING to do with quantum theory...
> On Nov 22, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Nils K. wrote:
> Dear Edgar, dear All!
> There is no "science of heaven" just as there is NO science of astrology...
> It's not that simple Edgar. Historically astrology is the real beginning
> of astronomy. And according to Popper all thinking/claims/ideas that can theoretically be found to be false IS science.
> There is a lot of research on astrology, and the research activity is
> far from being finished. With quantum entanglement, non-locality, the Universe as probability waves, or actually one single wave (sic) in a sense, astrology does not at all contradict science.
- At 06:22 PM 11/25/2012, Wade wrote:
>JulienneDoes it occur to you, Wade, that you believe that astrologers are
>You are missing Anna's point completely.
>When a scientist makes a prediction about a physical event such s a
>weather pattern or
>geological event or indeed a cosmological event then at least
>ignoring possible quantum type interactions
>which would seem relevant only at atomic level, then the prediction
>is exogenous to the system.
>However when we make predictions regarding human behaviour as for
>example with psychologists, economists, doctors
>etc there is always the possibility of an interaction between
>prediction and the event as the prediction is endogenous to the
>system and may itself influence the outcome itself.
>Fraudsters/delusionals such as astrologers should be particularly
>cognisant of the possibility of their predictions negatively
>impacting their victims because their victims are almost by
>definition amongst the most suggestible of the population.
>Of course the impact need not necessarily be negative. When I used
>to mess around with such things as a teenager, I was sure to try and
>put a positive and generally upbeat spin on my "predictions" and I
>think this is something that most horoscope writers tend to
>do. However, one can never know whether some "prediction" might not
>have some unforeseen perhaps even fatal consequences.
>I suspect those astrologers who are fraudsters are actually more
>cognisant of this issue than the delusionals who genuinely believe
>in their own supposed powers.
frauds because you were?
To blame the poor for subsisting on welfare has no justice unless we
are also willing to judge every rich member of society by how
productive he or she is. Taken individual by individual, it is likely
that there's more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.
-Norman Mailer, author (1923-2007)