What do you think of astrology?

In early 1970, they announced that the Draft would now be conducted by a lottery of Birth Dates for just the year 1951.
(The previous 1969 lottery had covered every guy born between 1944 and 1950)
What follows is my recollection of a conversation I had many times during the Spring of 1970. (The lottery would be held in July.)

"Finally, a perfect way to prove Astrology is valid."

"Wha?"

"Think about it. All the men, that is nineteen old boys, were born the same year, 1951"

"Yeah?"

"Well, all the astrologers have to do is go back to the days of that birth year and find the most auspicious and the least auspicious birthdates."

"Yeah, and.....?? "

"Well, a list of the most probable (least lucky) days to have been born could be published way before the actual lottery takes place. That way, when the actual lottery does take place and verifies the luckiness/unluckiness of those dates, Astrology will shown as a true, predictive science."

"Pass that pipe back over here."

"No, I'm serious, oh, and here's the pipe. Last year's lottery already showed that the guys born in December of all those years had the highest numbers of anybody. Only two dates in December were above 200. That's not statistically possible."
(That all was true, it was a major problem for the Selective Service which they blamed on a faulty mixing mechanism. Fools! No, it was fated!)

"So, what you're saying is, we figure out before the lottery who is most likely to be picked according to their Sun Signs, Moon Signs and Birthdates?

"Yeah. then those guys would have a heads-up before July and Astrology would be proven."

Nah. They'd probably rig it as soon as our dates were published.

"Yeah. .......OH, I know. We put the Astrology Dates in a sealed envelope and send it to like fifty newspapers and Walter Cronkite. They open the envelope on the same day as the lottery and the results go right on to the news."

=====
I begged. I pleaded. I talked about it to everybody who ever asked me what my sign was (which in those days was just about ANYbody you met in a bar. ) But....nada. Nobody did the work.

Somebody could still do it. Make up the prediction chart, then take the numbers that were actually drawn in July of 1970 and compare.

I'll be over here waiting.
(In July of 1970, I was an Intelligence Coordinator for the USAF and Artist/Repertoire Director of Thee Coffe House, San Angelo, Texas.)
Joe(What is my sign?)Nation

Hi All!

Just answering the question in the thread title.

Everything means something only if the observer finds meaning in it. Otherwise it doesn't.

I find no 'fatal' meaning in astrology, but it must be nice (to those that think it nice, of course) to know where some of the spacedust will end up...

Anyway - Have a lovely day!

mark...

I don't know how to say this any cooler or calmer, but what you just quoted does not clearly state that you believe in those horoscopes. Can you please read more closely? I am saying if you do, spare yourself from that nonsense.

Beliefs are what we think to be true, otherwise we would not believe what we believe. That's true. But our beliefs need not be true; in other words, we can be mistaken about what we believe. It is exactly correct to say that beliefs can be true or false, especially if we abide by the JTB model for knowledge - that is, to know something we must have a justified, true belief.

For instance, suppose I believed that Abraham Lincoln was the current president of the United States. Well, I would be holding a false belief, since Barack Obama is the current president of the United States. My thinking my belief was true, does not make my belief true.

Can you be more specific?

Yes, indeed, but you still take the jump to a conclusion, even if you leave another opening, but that's not importaint.

I'm sure you have some knowledge of insurance statistic, how eerily stabil those figures are, they don't randomly fluxuate, even though the possebilities of chance are there. That crime rate would randomly jump to 500% the 1 year, and fall to 20% the next, but the numbers are tightly bound to direct causes in society.

Behind the figures, there are people, people with different kinds of mentallities, leaders and followers, invetors, adreanalin junkies, bullies, junkies ..etc. If you read some of the serious horoscopes, you'll see a quite striking definition of all these kind of mentallities and personallites described.

for me, to have "knowledge" of something, is more than to have "belief" in something. knowledge seems to me to be more that just belief. to "know" something is not to "believe" something, "knowledge" is always more than 'belief", because knowledge is certain, whereas "belief" has the element of uncertainty. I just don't think it makse sense to equate "knowledge" with "true belief".

First, it's very important to clarify what we mean by "certain". Many confuse "certainty" with "absolute certainty", and this can create a whole host of problems. I, being a fallibilist, believe that humans are fallible, and that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty (that is, I believe humans can be mistaken). But that does not mean that we cannot be certain of things. I can be very certain that my mother just walked into the kitchen, since I just saw my mother walk into the kitchen. Also, so you know, most people apply the property of certainty to beliefs, not knowledge.

Those who abide by the JTB model are not equating knowledge with true belief, like you say. They are equating knowledge with justified, true belief. In other words, for it to be true that I know my mother is in the kitchen, three conditions are to be met: A.) I believe my mother is in the kitchen B.) I have justification that my mother is in the kitchen, and C.) It is true that my mother is in the kitchen.

That said, many philosophers acknowledge that the JTB model of knowledge is insufficient, and I'm sure you're aware there's tons of reading on the matter.

I don't say this sarcastically, but I really don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you could present one of these more serious horoscopes?

I have a hard time quoting books and documentaries 25 years ago.

Sorry, I think my question was obvious.

Ah, gotcha.

Anyone that works in health, emergency, or psychiatric services will tell you that they get a spike in calls for service around full moon. Other than that, I don't think there's anything in Astrology....that said, Quantum entanglement could always play a part (though that's just a thrown out there line) in such things (though even if it did, I would doubt very much that it would to the extent that astrology has 'developed')

I think there are more people than you realise who truely are dependent upon certain fundamental beliefs, and cling to them in a fearful way, and who are not at all willling to discuss them-thats there choice, to an extent.

I wrote that so long ago that I have no idea what the context was except that it is perfectly obvious that I was being flippant.

Personally, I believe in Astrology as well as Numerology, Tarot Reading Etc.

I think the problem is finding a quality person who knows what they are talking about, and that can properly convey the information they are seeing.

I guess it's only as good as the reader is.

Create A Great Day!

Markie

Very useful with the opposite sex for small talk...

You sly old fox you!

That was pretty damned entertaining . . .