a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment
kleinbl00  ·  3783 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Is Hubski An Echo Chamber?

Ahhh, but grasshoper: that's not the discussion at hand. The discussion at hand is:

    I have trouble flat out denying that our constantly changing position in the solar system/galaxy and the gravitational effects of the moon and other planets must have some sort of an effect on the chemical balances that make up our consciousness.

Your allegation is more along the lines of

    I think that astrology has less to do with any specific force acting on people than it has to do with viewing the universe as having an inherent order to it.

My response has little to do with your allegation, and your allegation has little to do with my response. They are part of the same discussion, but they are not the same discussion.

It's foolish to think we know everything about the universe. It's equally foolish to think that those who came before us knew nothing. However, there are a lot of ancient beliefs that were misguided and uninformed and, if the leading lights who reached those conclusions thousands of years ago could see modern science, they likely would have reached different conclusions.

That's the point of science, as far as I'm concerned: expand knowledge. So when onlythelonly says maybe astrology = gravity the scientific move is to demonstrate that astrology does not equal gravity, and that we've known this for 300 years.

That's a far cry from saying astrology = NOTHING however. I put a lot more credence into Chinese astrology because it makes sense to me that people born during the same geopolitical environment in the same place who grow up together are likely to have similar wants, fears, and worldviews. That's a tricky one to test, though.

Throw it into God's court and it isn't particularly testable. Which is appropriate: faith and science are at 90 degrees from each other. One shouldn't have a scientific discussion that hinges on faith, and one shouldn't have a discussion of faith that hinges on science.

The discussion above was a discussion of 'faith' that hinges on science. The only logical outcome is to push faith into a different corner or erode someone's trust in science.

I have nothing against faith. I'm pretty strongly of the opinion, however, that it shouldn't be used to solve problems that can be treated empirically.