Astrology Apologetics

[Politesse]

So your argument is that one should have a right to comment on Ebola, based on having heard of it before? Indeed you can, but there's no reason for me to take your commentary seriously, especially if I happen to have more experience with the disease.

For hundreds of years, people with no formal education have suffered and died from Ebola. Their direct experience never got them any closer to a vaccine or cure, until a bunch of doctors who had never even contracted the disease had the bare faced cheek to imagine that they knew better than the people with actual experience.

Your epistemology is deeply flawed. Experience isn't a very good indicator of knowledge, and the latter is often better obtained without the former.

I am baffled by your suggestion that a doctor who had never experienced the disease would somehow come up with a cure for it. Experience doesn't just mean "dying of" - studying something under a microscope, or observing the pathology of a sufferer, is also a form of experience. But a doctor who had never had any experience with the disease whatsoever would be no different than your average joe on the street. Having an MD doesn't give you magical powers to cure diseases you have never encountered. I guess you're trying to jam me into a position of your own devising, in which I am arguing that only a layman's experience matters, and indeed is superior to the experience of an expert. But of course, I made no such claim.

Indeed, all of this is a bizarre over-reaction to my observation that very few people in this conversation seem to have had experience of any kind, perspective or quality with how astrology actually works in practice, a vocation whose virtues in my opinion actually has very little to do with the magical powers of planets and everything to do with the therapeutic benefits of a symbolic exploration of one's problems in a safe and trusted environment. Not that I thought being an astrological querent was a superior form of experience to scientific study. Rather, the scientific approach to the topic - which would necessarily begin with unbiased observation - is exactly what I would recommend.

I note that you have some pretty severe misunderstandings about Ebola, which has neither a vaccine nor a cure, heroic efforts of doctors and many others notwithstanding.

 

[bilby]

So your argument is that one should have a right to comment on Ebola, based on having heard of it before? Indeed you can, but there's no reason for me to take your commentary seriously, especially if I happen to have more experience with the disease.

For hundreds of years, people with no formal education have suffered and died from Ebola. Their direct experience never got them any closer to a vaccine or cure, until a bunch of doctors who had never even contracted the disease had the bare faced cheek to imagine that they knew better than the people with actual experience.

Your epistemology is deeply flawed. Experience isn't a very good indicator of knowledge, and the latter is often better obtained without the former.

I am baffled by your suggestion that a doctor who had never experienced the disease would somehow come up with a cure for it. Experience doesn't just mean "dying of" - studying something under a microscope, or observing the pathology of a sufferer, is also a form of experience. But a doctor who had never had any experience with the disease whatsoever would be no different than your average joe on the street. Having an MD doesn't give you magical powers to cure diseases you have never encountered. I guess you're trying to jam me into a position of your own devising, in which I am arguing that only a layman's experience matters, and indeed is superior to the experience of an expert. But of course, I made no such claim.

Indeed, all of this is a bizarre over-reaction to my observation that very few people in this conversation seem to have had experience of any kind, perspective or quality with how astrology actually works in practice, a vocation whose virtues in my opinion actually has very little to do with the magical powers of planets and everything to do with the therapeutic benefits of a symbolic exploration of one's problems in a safe and trusted environment. Not that I thought being an astrological querent was a superior form of experience to scientific study. Rather, the scientific approach to the topic - which would necessarily begin with unbiased observation - is exactly what I would recommend.

I note that you have some pretty severe misunderstandings about Ebola, which has neither a vaccine nor a cure, heroic efforts of doctors and many others notwithstanding.

Your smug sense of superiority is, in this case, almost a year out of date. http://www.who.int/news-room/detail/23-12-2016-final-trial-results-confirm-ebola-vaccine-provides-high-protection-against-disease

I have plenty of experience of how astrology works, despite having never consulted an astrologer on anything more closely related to their field of work than 'would you like another beer'?

A good friend of mine makes an excellent living (and has an international reputation) as an astrologer. He was one of the first people back in the 1980s to produce astrological software for home use, and writes newspaper astrology columns that are published worldwide, as well as providing personally tailored readings. He would never admit it publically, but has confided in me over a beer, that the whole business is very lucrative nonsense.

The difference between him and me is that he doesn't feel guilty about stiffing idiots out of their money.

Your suggestion that people who have not consulted an astrologer cannot know what they do, is deeply wrong. I am glad to see that you are slowly winding back your idiotic position, now that it has been shown to be stupid.

 

[Politesse]

I am baffled by your suggestion that a doctor who had never experienced the disease would somehow come up with a cure for it. Experience doesn't just mean "dying of" - studying something under a microscope, or observing the pathology of a sufferer, is also a form of experience. But a doctor who had never had any experience with the disease whatsoever would be no different than your average joe on the street. Having an MD doesn't give you magical powers to cure diseases you have never encountered. I guess you're trying to jam me into a position of your own devising, in which I am arguing that only a layman's experience matters, and indeed is superior to the experience of an expert. But of course, I made no such claim.

Indeed, all of this is a bizarre over-reaction to my observation that very few people in this conversation seem to have had experience of any kind, perspective or quality with how astrology actually works in practice, a vocation whose virtues in my opinion actually has very little to do with the magical powers of planets and everything to do with the therapeutic benefits of a symbolic exploration of one's problems in a safe and trusted environment. Not that I thought being an astrological querent was a superior form of experience to scientific study. Rather, the scientific approach to the topic - which would necessarily begin with unbiased observation - is exactly what I would recommend.

I note that you have some pretty severe misunderstandings about Ebola, which has neither a vaccine nor a cure, heroic efforts of doctors and many others notwithstanding.

Your smug sense of superiority is, in this case, almost a year out of date. http://www.who.int/news-room/detail/23-12-2016-final-trial-results-confirm-ebola-vaccine-provides-high-protection-against-disease

I have plenty of experience of how astrology works, despite having never consulted an astrologer on anything more closely related to their field of work than 'would you like another beer'?

A good friend of mine makes an excellent living (and has an international reputation) as an astrologer. He was one of the first people back in the 1980s to produce astrological software for home use, and writes newspaper astrology columns that are published worldwide, as well as providing personally tailored readings. He would never admit it publically, but has confided in me over a beer, that the whole business is very lucrative nonsense.

The difference between him and me is that he doesn't feel guilty about stiffing idiots out of their money.

Your suggestion that people who have not consulted an astrologer cannot know what they do, is deeply wrong. I am glad to see that you are slowly winding back your idiotic position, now that it has been shown to be stupid.

I never "suggested" or stated that in the first place.

Nor does your "friend" mean anything, any more than if I said that I knew evolution was false because a friend of mine who teaches biology says it's all a sham. You seem to have some weird personal standard of truth going on there, where experience means nothing if it belongs to those you disagree with, but if it is your experience, suddenly a single personal anecdote means all? Not to mention, your anecdote doesn't contradict my point, unless he also showed you evidence - not anecdote - that there was no therapeutic benefit to his consultations.

An experimental vaccine, efficacy yet uncertain, for a single strain of Ebola does not a "cure" make.

 

[bilby]

I am baffled by your suggestion that a doctor who had never experienced the disease would somehow come up with a cure for it. Experience doesn't just mean "dying of" - studying something under a microscope, or observing the pathology of a sufferer, is also a form of experience. But a doctor who had never had any experience with the disease whatsoever would be no different than your average joe on the street. Having an MD doesn't give you magical powers to cure diseases you have never encountered. I guess you're trying to jam me into a position of your own devising, in which I am arguing that only a layman's experience matters, and indeed is superior to the experience of an expert. But of course, I made no such claim.

Indeed, all of this is a bizarre over-reaction to my observation that very few people in this conversation seem to have had experience of any kind, perspective or quality with how astrology actually works in practice, a vocation whose virtues in my opinion actually has very little to do with the magical powers of planets and everything to do with the therapeutic benefits of a symbolic exploration of one's problems in a safe and trusted environment. Not that I thought being an astrological querent was a superior form of experience to scientific study. Rather, the scientific approach to the topic - which would necessarily begin with unbiased observation - is exactly what I would recommend.

I note that you have some pretty severe misunderstandings about Ebola, which has neither a vaccine nor a cure, heroic efforts of doctors and many others notwithstanding.

Your smug sense of superiority is, in this case, almost a year out of date. http://www.who.int/news-room/detail/23-12-2016-final-trial-results-confirm-ebola-vaccine-provides-high-protection-against-disease

I have plenty of experience of how astrology works, despite having never consulted an astrologer on anything more closely related to their field of work than 'would you like another beer'?

A good friend of mine makes an excellent living (and has an international reputation) as an astrologer. He was one of the first people back in the 1980s to produce astrological software for home use, and writes newspaper astrology columns that are published worldwide, as well as providing personally tailored readings. He would never admit it publically, but has confided in me over a beer, that the whole business is very lucrative nonsense.

The difference between him and me is that he doesn't feel guilty about stiffing idiots out of their money.

Your suggestion that people who have not consulted an astrologer cannot know what they do, is deeply wrong. I am glad to see that you are slowly winding back your idiotic position, now that it has been shown to be stupid.

I never "suggested" or stated that in the first place.

Nor does your "friend" mean anything, any more than if I said that I knew evolution was false because a friend of mine who teaches biology says it's all a sham. You seem to have some weird personal standard of truth going on there, where experience means nothing if it belongs to those you disagree with, but if it is your experience, suddenly a single personal anecdote means all? Not to mention, your anecdote doesn't contradict my point, unless he also showed you evidence - not anecdote - that there was no therapeutic benefit to his consultations.

An experimental vaccine, efficacy yet uncertain, for a single strain of Ebola does not a "cure" make.

And I never said that it did.

You are right that my anecdote is worthless as evidence; But you might want to consider what that tells you about your initial claim. And then you might want to feel embarrassed, and a lot less smugly condescending. Though I strongly doubt that you will.

 

[Politesse]

I never "suggested" or stated that in the first place.

Nor does your "friend" mean anything, any more than if I said that I knew evolution was false because a friend of mine who teaches biology says it's all a sham. You seem to have some weird personal standard of truth going on there, where experience means nothing if it belongs to those you disagree with, but if it is your experience, suddenly a single personal anecdote means all? Not to mention, your anecdote doesn't contradict my point, unless he also showed you evidence - not anecdote - that there was no therapeutic benefit to his consultations.

An experimental vaccine, efficacy yet uncertain, for a single strain of Ebola does not a "cure" make.

And I never said that it did.

You are right that my anecdote is worthless as evidence; But you might want to consider what that tells you about your initial claim. And then you might want to feel embarrassed, and a lot less smugly condescending. Though I strongly doubt that you will.

Except that my argument was not based on personal anecdote. Are you under the (incorrect) assumption that I use an astrologer, or am sympathetic to the idea that stars control our fates? I'm not; I just don't have much use for tunnel-view perspectives on the world... just because I don't consider astrology to be a science doesn't mean I have to ignore the obvious good things people get out of it. Or respect people who mouth off about things they obviously know little about, just because they are on the same "side" as me in some imaginary and unnecessary ideological battlefield.

 

[ruby sparks]

Many people experience certain benefits from believing in woo. It's well known and generally accepted.

 

[Politesse]

Many people experience certain benefits from believing in woo. It's well known and generally accepted.

Until one starts speaking specifics, to an entrenched atheist. We cannot admit any virtue, without carefully reminding the viewer that faith is a delusion, and all dealers of woo fraudulent hucksters.

 

[ruby sparks]

Many people experience certain benefits from believing in woo. It's well known and generally accepted.

Until one starts speaking specifics, to an entrenched atheist. We cannot admit any virtue, without carefully reminding the viewer that faith is a delusion, and all dealers of woo fraudulent hucksters.

We?

As an entrenched atheist, I personally would not call such people fraudulent hucksters (be it theism woo or astrology woo). Some may be. Others not.

 

[Peez]

Politesse:
I would see your point, if anyone were in fact presenting objective information here, as opposed to gut reactions based on pre-existing religious opinions.

Just for clarity, could you point out the "gut reactions based on pre-existing religious opinions", and perhaps why you characterize them as such?

Peez

I am starting to suspect that your implication that there were "gut reactions based on pre-existing religious opinions" was not based in reality.

Peez

 

[Politesse]

Politesse:
I would see your point, if anyone were in fact presenting objective information here, as opposed to gut reactions based on pre-existing religious opinions.

Just for clarity, could you point out the "gut reactions based on pre-existing religious opinions", and perhaps why you characterize them as such?

Peez

I am starting to suspect that your implication that there were "gut reactions based on pre-existing religious opinions" was not based in reality.

Peez

I just thought it sounded like a boring direction for the argument to turn in. I'm not going to waste ink trying to accuse fellow posters of their biases, it is not the most productive of pastimes.