fayfreethinkers.com

Doug, while I appreciate your sense of scientific truth above all, you seem to be very closed minded for a free thinker. Just an observation to consider.

BARB
Actually, Dar sort of hit the example I had in mind - acupunture - it has been looked upon as fraud, "a crock", quackery, and magic. We now have evidence it works, although the magical explanation of why it works is apparently incorrect (as was the magical explanation of "humors" for human illness in the 19th century's best western medicine).

DAR
I don't understand this phrase "magical explanation" you use twice above. Are you using the word magic in some special way? Without looking at a dictionary at the moment I know of two main ways it is used:

1) Magic, as in a trick performed by a magician.

This is simple trickery, no exceptions.

2) Magic, as in something supernatural, otherworldly, not naturalistic

How can saying something is "magic" ever be described as an "explanation"? I am absolutely baffled by this. In fact, what could be more anathema to science (or the enlightenment) than when confronted with a problem we don't understand (a recent issue of Skeptical Inquirer had a nice long list of science's biggest challenges/unanswered questions) saying, "oh, the explanation is... it's magic"?!

Eugenie Scott, the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education once put it this way:

“…the practice of modern science is overwhelmingly (methodologically) materialistic: supernatural explanations are dead ends that do not lead to further understanding.” --Eugenie C. Scott

The dictionary has for magic:

1. The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.

2. a The practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature.
b The charms, spells, and rituals so used.

3. The exercise of sleight of hand or conjuring for entertainment.

Or as Sav said earlier above, this is god of the gaps. When we have a gap there is this human tendancy to want to stuff a god or magic in the gap. But a god, or magic, has no explanatory power whatsoever. It's practically the opposite of an explanation!

D.
------------------------
"Why can we not say, instead of caving in to a claim of the miraculous, that we do not, as yet, understand. Just because I do not understand how a sleight of hand trick is done, I do not have to posit that telekinesis exists, or some other paranormal claim is valid; just because I do not know the mechanism of a stage illusion, I do not have to believe that actual magic is being performed in front of me; and just because I don't have all the information about something such as meteors, disease
remission, lights in the sky, and so on, I do not have to make any
such provisional declaration of a miracle, as a tentative assumption
to be later revised when the mechanism is explained.

It is much more sensible, and in harmony with all our past experience,
to make the provisional assumption that a perfectly natural event has
occurred that we do not completely understand. If at some later time
there is any evidence of the miraculous, then we would accept that, on
the same level of proof that is required for a new scientific
hypothesis or claim."

--Greg Erwin, late President of the Canadian Humanist Society

Actually, the below is pretty much what I mean by magic - and at least partially covers why you apparently won't accept it. There are multiple definitions of magic and the extreme one you use cannot encompass what I'm talking about.

"Arthur C. Clark once said, “Any technology beyond our own would seem like magic to us.” This is the essence of magic. It is the doing or the occurrence of something which an observer does not understand how the end result came about. In some cases, even the practitioner of the magic may not fully comprehend or understand how something worked -- and yet still be able to use it.

"Strictly speaking, aspirin for many years has been magical. It was observed that it worked -- at least had the illusion or appeared to do so -- but science did not understand how or why it worked. Medical science was delighted to use it, to replicate the experiment over and over a billion or a trillion times, and to rest comfortably in the belief that it would always act in the way it was expected. But the how and why eluded them.

"One dictionary definition of magic is: “the supposed art of influencing the course of events by the occult control of nature or of spirits; witchcraft.” It goes on to provide synonyms of “sorcery, wizardry, black magic, necromancy, the black art, voodoo, devilry, diabolism, occultism, theurgy, white magic.”

The extreme bias of this definition derives from several sources, the most obvious being the use of word “supposed”, as if one can not be sure that such a thing might exist. And yet, in the same volume, “therapy” is not defined as “the [alleged] treatment of physical or mental disorders,” ..."

I haven't yet figured out how to change colors or font to indicate copied material, so used quotes. I found this by searching the web for "definition of magic" - and will have to find it again to get the link - and medical science still isn't sure why aspirin works, which doesn't mean they've stopped looking.

"Arthur C. Clark once said, “Any technology beyond our own would seem like magic to us.”

DAR
This is one of my favorite quotes. I use it all the time. A key word, if not the key word in it is "seem." Clark is not talking about the nature of reality. He is talking about the human perception of an event, and how it is limited by current knowledge and technology. He is not postulating that any "magic" is occuring because of these limitations, and just as importantly, it is never an explanation to attribute something to magic.

BARB
extreme one you use cannot encompass what I'm talking about.

DAR
The "extreme one" *I* use? What one would you like to use?

"Strictly speaking, aspirin for many years has been magical.

DAR
Strictly speaking? There is no good reason to think aspirin is passing along it's benefits by any other method than purely natural methods. No basis whatsoever for discarding Occam's razor here and postulating a supernatural world and making the huge assumption something magical is occuring.

Perhaps this is some poetic use of the word? Perhaps this person is speaking of perception as opposed to reality? Aspirins benefits are perceived to be magical because we may not know exactly what is going on?

Well I am off to work. If you want to tweak skeptics, just start mentioning or appealing to the "magical explanation."

D.
-----------------------
"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer become his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task..."
[Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium", published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941]

"As mystery answered all general purposes, miracle followed as an occasional auxiliary. The former served to bewilder the mind, the latter to puzzle the senses, The one was the lingo, the other the legerdemain (sleight of hand)." --Thomas Paine, Age of Reason, pg. 92-93

Betsy wrote:Doug, while I appreciate your sense of scientific truth above all, you seem to be very closed minded for a free thinker. Just an observation to consider.

DOUG
I appreciate the observation. It is always good to have someone to keep me on my toes. Skeptics must examine their own beliefs with as much skepticism as they examine everything else.

But am I closed-minded or just practical? I will believe anything that's true (or likely to be true, compared to other explanations). If you can show me that belief in magic is true or likely to be true, I'll believe it.

In fact, we even offer money for such a demonstration. I don't care what the belief is, if it's true, I'll believe it. You just have to show me that it's true. It turns out that the scientific method is the BEST way human beings have ever discovered for showing that something is true or false. If you have a better method, I'm open to hearing about it.

This doesn't mean that science discovers all truths. It certainly does not and cannot. I ate a kiwi fruit last year and now I can't prove it. It is true that I ate it, but science cannot prove it. OK, science misses some truths. (So obviously, since I believe I ate a kiwi fruit last year, not all truths I believe are scientific truths, strictly speaking.) Science is above all a method, remember, not a set of beliefs.

But on the other hand, other, nonscientific methods will not only miss at least as many truths, but they will allow huge amounts of falsehood in. Gullible systems allow beliefs in all kinds of things that are most likely going to turn out to be false or have already been shown to be false (such as astrology).

So do you raise the bar really high and acknowledge that you'll miss some truths, or do you lower the bar enough to catch those truths but at the same time allow a flood of falsehoods in? I prefer the former. Maybe I am close-minded, but on the other hand, the bar is there for any truth to try to pass over. If a truth can't meet that criterion, that's not my fault.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:Arthur C. Clark once said, “Any technology beyond our own would seem like magic to us.” This is the essence of magic. It is the doing or the occurrence of something which an observer does not understand how the end result came about. In some cases, even the practitioner of the magic may not fully comprehend or understand how something worked -- and yet still be able to use it.

DOUG
On that view, if magic is nothing more than a mechanism we don't understand, it makes no sense to say that magic "works." That would be tantamount to saying that "ignorance" works. There are many things we don't understand, but that does not mean that they all have the same method of working. So to subsume them under the heading of "magic" is slightly misleading.

But if you want to call unknown forces "magic," that 's fine, except that most people will misunderstand you and think you are talking about supernatural forces. I believe that there are forces we do not understand, but I don't believe that there are supernatural forces, due to lack of evidence.

Earlier in this thread, I wrote:

Clarke's (third) law states, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Nice to see everyone catching up...

Re: Sir Arthur Clarke

Another one of my favorite quotes from him. This one is powerful:

“Whether Freeman Dyson’s vision (some would say nightmare) of eternity is true or not, one thing seems certain. Our galaxy is now in the brief springtime of its life—a springtime made glorious by such brilliant blue-white stars as Vega and Sirius, and, on a more humble scale, our own Sun. Not until all these have flamed through their incandescent youth, in a few fleeting billions of years, will the real history of the universe begin.

It will be a history illuminated only by the reds and infrareds of dully glowing stars that would be almost invisible to our eyes; yet the somber hues of that all-but-eternal universe may be full of color and beauty to whatever strange beings have adapted to it. They will know that before them lie, not the millions of years in which we measure eras of geology, nor the billions of years which span the past lives of the stars, but years to be counted literally in trillions.

They will have time enough, in those endless aeons, to attempt all things, and to gather all knowledge. They will be like gods, because no gods imagined by our minds have ever possessed the powers they will command. But for all that, they may envy us, basking in the bright afterglow of Creation; for we knew the universe when it was young.”

--Arthur C. Clarke, From: “Profiles of the future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible.”


.
.
.

Unknown forces ARE supernatural forces to those who have no desire or intention of researching them. I use the term magic, was brought up to use the term this way, to cover things that don't at the moment have a discernible cause because we don't have the knowledge of that cause, possibly don't have the technology to discern that cause at this point in time. Miracle is "god-caused" period, full stop, don't bother to investigate because you can't. Magic is caused by something we don't understand - get to work trying to figure out what - the "magic" of nature, the "magic" of the Christmas season (the "feel-good" cheerfulness that comes around the solstice can't be totally because of the presents you think you're going to get) - Aspirin works. We know it works. Why the heck does it work? Don't know, but working on it. That's magic.

Magical explanations on the other hand are ideas of why something works that haven't been tested, just accepted until somebody comes up with contrary evidence. Disease-causing humors, Energy-balancing acupuncture, sneezing to throw evil spirits from the body (say "bless you" real quick so they can't get back in) - many superstitions result from magical explanations that we now know are incorrect. The main problem with magical explanations is "rational" folks tend to discount the fact (19th century knowledge of nutrition, for example) when the magical explanation is debunked (balancing "phlem" being 19th century magical explanation for why nutrition works) - so we reinvent the wheel every time the wheel works but the reason for why it works is discounted. Very disheartening.

I'd class the phenomenae Tamara & I have been talking about in with "ate a kiwi last year but can't prove it" sorts of things. - and as to astrology, it's possible that something not causal happens concurrently with the movements of planets through the sky as marked by constellations seen about 2000 years ago from the Eastern Mediterranean area, but rational folks have spent so much time denying the phenomenae because the mechanism/magical explanation is wrong, there is no true research on what may be happening (cyclical changes in electromagnetic waves, sunspots, who knows). You can't get grant money to study something "everyone knows is bunk". (I'm not talking about reading the future/fortune-telling here, just birth charts for personality traits. Annecdotal evidence only, but I've seen too many correlations to discount birth charts - and I mean charts, not just "sun signs".) So here I am starting another fight with Dar and Doug. And I like a (relatively) quiet life. sigh.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:Unknown forces ARE supernatural forces to those who have no desire or intention of researching them.

DAR
I totally disagree. To go from "something is unknown" to it is a "supernatural force" is definitive superstitious backward primative thinking. Something we were supposed to have learned long ago. I am for researching anything, but in the meantime, not for ever assuming entirely without precident, a supernatural magical force to fill the gap.

BARB
I use the term magic, was brought up to use the term this way, to cover things that don't at the moment have a discernible cause because we don't have the knowledge of that cause, possibly don't have the technology to discern that cause at this point in time.

DAR
Well then as Doug said, pretty much everyone will assume you are asserting something supernatural with the use of the word magic because that's how the word is used. The definition I gave above was not "extreme" as you called it, but from the American Heritage dictionary.

Aspirin works. We know it works. Why the heck does it work? Don't know, but working on it. That's magic.

DAR
You think aspirin works, or may work, by some supernatural method?

BARB
I'd class the phenomenae Tamara & I have been talking about in with "ate a kiwi last year but can't prove it" sorts of things.

DAR
I would never class those together because one is an ordinary mundane claim and the others are not. Not even close. There is a difference.

BARB
- and as to astrology, it's possible that something not causal happens concurrently with the movements of planets through the sky as marked by constellations seen about 2000 years ago from the Eastern Mediterranean area, but rational folks have spent so much time denying the phenomenae because the mechanism/magical explanation is wrong, there is no true research on what may be happening (cyclical changes in electromagnetic waves, sunspots, who knows).

DAR
I wouldn't even give a possible on this. If astrologers were just making claims about planets that would be one thing. But they make claims about effects from stars 100 of millions of light years away and group their constellations together containing stars with wildly different distances just because of how they are viewed from earth. This is complete palpable nonsense. It's astounding how many times astrologers have been caught with their pants down. And a persons life is supposed to be effected in the future because of the position of these heavenly bodies at the time of birth? Why?
"It's possible something causal happens" in the same sense it is possible a monkey flew out of my bottom last week and some aliens abducted me and erased my memory about it. No doubt we will keep testing it and it will keep failing because people are drawn to such magical thinking, but it is test case claptrap and for well understood reasons.

Annecdotal evidence only, but I've seen too many correlations to discount birth charts - and I mean charts, not just "sun signs".)

DAR
Very easy to test and we won't need a government grant. Line up your charts and we can do a test. It's about time we did another any way. It would be very instructional. Want to win $5,000 in cash and embarrass some cocky skeptics Barbara?

And I am off to work.

D.
----------------------
"Other signs that pseudoscience is replacing real science are studies that show most school children believe in astrology and 63 percent of all adults are unaware that dinosaurs died before the first humans walked the earth." - Deborah Frazier, Rocky Mountain News, February 18, 2003

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:Unknown forces ARE supernatural forces to those who have no desire or intention of researching them. I use the term magic, was brought up to use the term this way, to cover things that don't at the moment have a discernible cause because we don't have the knowledge of that cause, possibly don't have the technology to discern that cause at this point in time. .... Aspirin works. We know it works. Why the heck does it work? Don't know, but working on it. That's magic.

Because you don't know how aspirin works, you call it supernatural/magic. But we do know how aspirin works. It irreversibly acetylates the cyclooxygenase enzymes such that they can no longer produce prostaglandins and thromboxanes. Prostaglandins contribute to the coagulation of platelets and signal pain reception, among other things; thromboxanes are needed for the production of platelets. This is why aspirin thins the blood and reduces pain.

Something's being considered supernatural or magic is simply an argument from ignorance.

Savonarola wrote:But we do know how aspirin works. It irreversibly acetylates the cyclooxygenase enzymes such that they can no longer produce prostaglandins and thromboxanes. Prostaglandins contribute to the coagulation of platelets and signal pain reception, among other things; thromboxanes are needed for the production of platelets.

DOUG
Hmmm. So that's how magic works...

That definition of magic is common, but still extreme. You specifically are not (necessarily) extreme for using it. The American Heritage dictionary uses the most common definitions, not all definitions. I say again, magic is/can be defined as the process for something we know works but don't know why it works - yet. It's the definition I grew up with. (And I'll buy that explanation of how aspirin works - at least until the next set of debunkers come along and prove it can't work that way - as my knowledge of biochemistry is close to non-existant.) This discussion is getting to be like the arguments over when does human life start - is a fertilized egg a person kind of thing. By the definition of magic you use, what you say/stand by is correct. By my definition of magic, what I say/stand by is - and my definition basically says EVERYTHING is natural, we just haven't figured out the method/connection/whatever. This is a difference of definitions here.

You obviously don't spend enough time around "ordinary" Americans if you don't think the unknown forces=supernatural forces isn't prevalent in modern America. I didn't say it was right and of course we were supposed to have learned better long ago. Unfortunately it is the way more people than I am happy about think. Why do you think our science scores are so poor in America. Dar, isn't it your quote about the number of Americans who think Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs?

I knew I was pushing a hot button when I even responded to a previous mention of astronomy. You aren't hearing what I'm saying. If, for example, every year at a certain time a certain kind of pollen is released but I can't see what releases it, I just know that it always shows up when I stand on this planet and look at the moon it appears to be inside the constellation of stars I call Ares, then (in an earlier age) I might/probably would connect the 2 and even more probably consider the moon's position to be causal. I'm saying we haven't done any kind of research on what on this planet could possibly cause certain personality or character traits to occur regularly enough at certain times of year that I can listen to a friend talk about her husband, whom I've never met and know nothing about, and say, "He's a Capricorn, isn't he?" and be right. - and I'm not very good at this, I don't do birth charts, and there are only a few character traits I can recognize like that - but the fact that there are any says there's something here to investigate and as long as "rational people", who are the only ones inclined to investigate anything, keep denying that anything is going on, it will not be investigated.

probably the use of the word "magic" wasn't the best choice and hindered this discussion. I don't think Barbara really meant there are "magical" things going on in the sense that word is usually construed.

there are unexplained phenomena that occur, with no scientific explanation (perhaps just thus far) that you can't just "pooh pooh" and say it's just a coincidence every single time. Or, I guess you can, and you do, but that doesn't make it right.

I think the best thing to do is just say, I don't KNOW how that happens. Maybe it's a coincidence, maybe there's an explanation and we'll know some day what it is. Because really, no one can know for sure right now.

Just like what happens to us after our body dies. You may believe something happens or nothing happens, but no one knows with 100% certainty.

BARB
I say again, magic is/can be defined as the process for something we know works but don't know why it works - yet.

DAR
Yes, but you must give a wink of the eye when you use it this way.



You tried aspirin, have any others? Any that a supernatural claim would be less of an assumption than some unknown natural force? I don't think so.

BARB
You obviously don't spend enough time around "ordinary" Americans if you don't think the unknown forces=supernatural forces isn't prevalent in modern America.

DAR
Yes, we are up to our eyeballs in superstition and foolishness. As I have quoted many times:

More than half of all American adults (53%) do not know that the Earth goes around the Sun once a year. (“Scientific Savvy? In the U.S., Not Much,” New York Times, August 30, 2005.)

42% can't answer correctly when asked if the earliest humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs.

About 11 percent of young citizens (18-24) of the U.S. couldn't locate the U.S. on a map.

But that this is the case, is not a good reason to buy into the idea that any unknown X = supernatural X. That is the anti-thesis of science, a complete dead end and has exactly zero explanatory power. And incidentally, the foundation of almost all religions.

BARB
I didn't say it was right and of course we were supposed to have learned better long ago. Unfortunately it is the way more people than I am happy about think.

DAR
Oh, okay. This is just muddled then.

BARB
Dar, isn't it your quote about the number of Americans who think Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs?

DAR
Yes. This is a quip of course, mocking the fact that about 45% of Americans believe the earth is young and we thus co-existed with Dino's.

BARB
I might/probably would connect the 2 and even more probably consider the moon's position to be causal. I'm saying we haven't done any kind of research on what on this planet could possibly cause certain personality or character traits to occur regularly enough at certain times of year that I can listen to a friend talk about her husband, whom I've never met and know nothing about, and say, "He's a Capricorn, isn't he?"

DAR
a) There isn't any causal phenomenon to investigate, just anecdotes like above. How often does this friend make these guesses? How often are they wrong. The exact amount of times the law of averages tells us they will. Demonstrate otherwise, win a nice prize.

b) This HAS been extensively tested and it fails. Have you read our astrology tract Barb?

Why astrology appears to work is no mystery. It is extremely well understood. It is such bad foo foo it is used as a textbook example of bad foo foo (and there is a lot of competition for that position). It's a CHEAP parlor trick based upon the same principles of self deception as tarot cards and cold reading and a good dose of wishful thinking. Barbara, you are extremely bright and knowledgable, even brilliant on a good day, and have no business defending astrology in any way!

I don't do birth charts, and there are only a few character traits I can recognize like that - but the fact that there are any says there's something here to investigate...

DAR
There are no character traits identified with astrological signs. Not one. Zip. Zero. This is a little game of self-deception.
Do you remember the little squinty eyed fellow named Ray Hyman I was so proud to have my picture with at the skeptic convention? Remember how I told the story of how he made extra money while in college by giving palm readings? He was successful and people said he was very good at it. He read the books, knew the right things to say, and believed in it. Then a magician friend who knew what was really going on (magician are professional tricksters, it is their job to study and become experts in how to fool people AND how people fool themselves) challenged him to say the exact opposite of what he was reading in the hands. He was afraid at first because he thought the people would think he was a complete failure. To his absolute amazment, his clients thought he was just as accurate as ever, maybe more so. Then he learned what was really going on. We are extremely good at taking random data and making it fit into the patterns of our life. Part of the problem is the looseness of language. Part of it is gullibility. A lot of it is wanting to believe certain basic things about ourself.
Anyway, if you want to know more about this just ask.

BARB
and as long as "rational people", who are the only ones inclined to investigate anything, keep denying that anything is going on, it will not be investigated.

DAR
Nonsense. WE are the ones that want, and have, investigated this stuff even though there IS nothing going on. The true believers rarely do because they "know it is true" based upon their piles of worthless anecdotes and are hesitant to be tested for perhaps other reasons (can you think of any?). And the claims of astrology (are we really having this conversation?) have been thoroughly tested ad naseum. It would be hard to find foo foo with a more dismal track record than astrology.
Why are these astrologers not lining up to take our prize money or Randi's $1,000,000? Sometimes I make the prize my house. Find me an astrologer willing to be tested in a fair test that they agree in advance is fair, and if they pass the test, I'll give them a house.

D.
--------------------
Barb, if you have a random selection of 23 persons, what do you think the odds are that at least two of them have the same birthday?

1) 1% chance

2) 5% chance

3) 10% chance

4) 20% chance

5) 50% chance

Twenty three birthdays, 365 days. Two of them exactly the same.

After making your selection, you can go here for the answer:

http://www.csicop.org/si/9809/coincidence.html
.
.

DAR you're proving my point. You've just said that there was no connection and nothing to investigate. My example connected two events consistently happening at the same time and expressed understanding that some people would consider one to causal of the other - and noted that since the first isn't causal, there is something to investigate to discover what is. You've also ignored that I said EVERYTHING is natural - there is no such thing as supernatural - we just haven't figured out the connection yet - and keep going on about supernatural causes not being valid. I don't know anything about palm reading, and don't particularly want to. I do know a little about astrology - it's astronomy in it's early stages when scholars tried to connect "macro" and "micro" cosmic events - and most assuredly there are personality or character traits associated with astrology, even if a large part (like 99%) of what you see in the public arena (astrology columns, etc) is "foo foo". I don't remember enough of my stat class for your odds on same birthday, and don't plan on guessing, since I don't the logic to back my guess. Purely mathematically it should be very small since each of the 23 has a mathematical 1 in 365 chance of being born any specific date - but I know statistically births do not fall evenly throughout the year, so that might load the chances towards some months more than others - but my stat class was over 20 years ago and I haven't used it much since.

most assuredly there are personality or character traits associated with astrology...

DAR
Do you have ANY evidence for this "most assured" claim?

The claim that personality or character traits are associated with astrology has been tested repeatedly, and fails. Any astrologer in the world can right now take an extremely simple, basic, highschool level test of their ability to use the power of astrology to identify personality or character traits and collect James Randi's one million dollars. It should be a breeze. Why do you suppose they don't?
Even worse, no one can even come up with a plausible reason why there should or could be a connection between the position of stars and personality traits. Nothing that can pass the laugh test. So that leaves us with no reason why it should work, and when you test it, it doesn't work. Classic, definitive, foo foo. All of it.

So what good reason is there for anyone to believe there are "personality or character traits" associated with the position of stars billions of light years away? So far you have given us this:

"I can listen to a friend talk about her husband, whom I've never met and know nothing about, and say, "He's a Capricorn, isn't he?" and be right. - and I'm not very good at this, I don't do birth charts, and there are only a few character traits I can recognize like that..."

I assure you, you are as good at it as the best astrologer in the world, or the worst. It makes no difference whether you wrinkle your brow and study each chart for a week, or blindfold yourself and throw darts at a selection of astrological signs stuck on a dart board. No one can identify astrological signs any better than chance. If you have any evidence contradicting the mountains of evidence showing astrology is complete rubbish, pass it along.

Or perhaps you would like to participate in a test?

I don't remember enough of my stat class for your odds on same birthday, and don't plan on guessing,

DAR
Why wouldn't you take a guess? There is no charge.

Purely mathematically it should be very small since each of the 23 has a mathematical 1 in 365 chance of being born any specific date

DAR
The answer is 50%, which is not small. See the link for the interesting and rather complex explanation. These things are often not as they seem. Thus my comparison with astrology which is a very well understood word game trick like the tarot card word game trick and the palmistry word game trick....

there is no such thing as supernatural

DAR
What about the things that work by magic? There is a natural magic?

So you believe most assuredly there is a connection between the location of stars and "personality or character traits" but you believe this to be natural. Interesting.

Why?

D.
----------------------
"...a theologian is quick to give his answer, "GOD!" To almost everything that science cannot explain right now. But he (Paul Davies) cautions against using such "God-of-the-gaps" approach as a fundamentally flawed one. You WILL retreat sooner or later faced with a convincing evidence that explains a phenomenon and doesn't invoke god. Every question that science CAN answer now has been answered by theologians centuries before. Incorrectly. They attribute less and less to god. Will they some day attribute nothing? Who knows, lets hope so.”
.
.

.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:I do know a little about astrology - it's astronomy in it's early stages when scholars tried to connect "macro" and "micro" cosmic events - and most assuredly there are personality or character traits associated with astrology, even if a large part (like 99%) of what you see in the public arena (astrology columns, etc) is "foo foo".

DOUG
Astrology has been tested and examined many times, for a long, long time, and it has never been shown that any of its claims are true.

Sometimes astrologers will claim that IF you have exact, detailed information such as the longitude and latitude of the person, the exact time to the second when he or she was born, etc. etc. then you can do an accurate horoscope. Nonsense. No matter how many details they plug in, they are no more accurate than randomness.

DOUG
Sometimes astrologers will claim that IF you have exact, detailed information such as the longitude and latitude of the person...

DAR
There was an article I read sometime ago where, after failing regular tests based upon their normal astrology claims, one of the reasons cited was that to be really accurate birth times would need to be known to the millisecond....

No joke.

Why everything, or anything, changes regarding your future or personality because you have left the womb at a certain time, is never explained.

D.
-----------------------
A nice page showing how the astrology trick works:

***
Astrologer meets client

Tricks of the trade

Jacques Halbronn

An abridged translation of L'astrologue face a son client: les ficelles du metier 2nd edition, Editions de la Grande Conjunction, Paris 1995.

Abstract -- The present emphasis on tradition, techniques, and speculation, should be reduced in favour of making astrologers more aware of what happens during a chart reading. Astrologers should not be deceived by the apparent success of their experiences. Such success is due not to any inherent truth in astrology but to their strategies and tricks of the trade, or what scientific researchers would call artifacts. We should avoid training astrologers who become entrapped by bad habits. Article is illustrated with ten cartoons.

Preface
This work is about astrological consultation and tricks of the trade. For you, astrology may now lose its magic. But astrological consultation is more a massage of the client's ego than a message from the stars. Tricks of the trade are necessary to keep the client happy.

There are three parts -- the underlying astronomy, astrology as knowledge, and the consultation itself -- with a postscript on teaching. The text is addressed to astrologers and students of astrology. Ten cartoons drawn by Larissa Halbronn to my captions illustrate the key issues.

http://www.astrology-and-science.com/

You're still not listening to what I'm saying. I don't think the stars have a darned thing to do with the character traits that are associated with them - I think something here on earth causes it and that something is not being investigated precisely because of all the arguments against the stars being causal, and the subsequent denial that there are any character traits that for some reason that we do not know and aren't investigating show up in people born certain times of the year (or of the month or day, for that matter).