[AMG Power]

While we may have "empirical evidence" that Science and Stupidity begin with S, this study may have just proven that Science can be a lot more than plain Stupid.

Here's why:

Quantum Physics has now proven that:

Reality is an illusion and exists only when we look at it - - in other words REALITY DOES NOT EXIST - one of the many links providing "proof":

https://consciouslifenews.com/new-mi...oking/1190900/

So according to Quantum physics:

(a) This thread does not exist
(b) Team Bhp does not exist
(c) You do not exist
(d) Nor does anyone else exist



So let's not blame them for saying astrology does not exist.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Spoken like a true Hayek if I may say so. Thank you for your balanced and mature post on the need to accept beliefs that are not ours. Many bodies of human knowledge are not science and they still have a lot of value for humankind and making society work - religion, spirituality, economics (sorry Friedrich Hayek), sociology, parts of history, literature and I dare say astrology.

I see you are mixing two things. The question is not whether astrology is useful, but whether it is a science or a faith. Economics is not a science either, but I enjoy analyzing/reading it a lot.

Astrology is indeed useful, it provides direction, happiness, peace of mind to people. In fact, in my younger days I used to keenly consult Linda Goodman's Love signs repeatedly and used to draw conclusions on whether a new girl I met will be a good match for my sun sign. It was my version of horoscope matching. I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed that process, during my days of innocence. I don't regret those years.

I don't go around telling folks not to believe in astrology. But I do resist when people call it a science and ask me to follow that so called science. That may be immature in your books, but I call it honesty. If some fellow walks into my house and says I must move the front door to another wall otherwise my family will suffer, I am not going to smile and oblige. That actually happened to my father 30 years ago, and my dad replied saying he doesn't believe in nonsense. The guest was offended that his expertise was rejected. But I still feel my dad did the right thing, instead of accepting the guest's belief.

Science has always progressed by questioning the current beliefs. If Galileo had been balanced and mature and hadn't upset the status quo, it would have delayed the progress of science by at least a century. We would be still riding horses. Luckily for us, Galileo was a rebel. He set off an explosion into the prevailing belief.

Originally Posted by AltoLXI

Interested to know who was that?

I have already mentioned him twice before in this thread. But I don't mind repeating. Those rules he set are still valid after 1000 years.

The scientific methodology was first defined by Egyptian scientist, Ibn al-Haytham (AD 950-1040), who is hailed as the father of modern optics and experimental physics.

He said (do notice the highlighted parts):

The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration and not the sayings of human beings whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of of its content, attack it from every side. he should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.

Originally Posted by Dry Ice

I think it might be Alzahen. He was probably one of the earliest to insist and rely on experimentation to prove theories. He used this method extensively while writing his book on optics. Remember reading about him long time back. Sorry if my guess is incorrect.

You are also correct. Alzahen was his latinized name.

Originally Posted by AMG Power

The year is 1685.

For the existence of gravity, this would have been the answers:

(a) Scientist - Gravity does NOT exist. It hasn't been proven yet.
(b) Lab Technician - Maybe, I seem to get a feeling occasionally.
(c) Katrina Kaif - Of course, I feel it whenever I jump of a building along with Salman Khan for those action scenes.

Wrong. Until 1685, everybody knew gravity existed, it is hard not to notice. They just didn't know the laws of physics that governed gravity until then.

Originally Posted by AMG Power

Quantum Physics has now proven that:

Reality is an illusion and exists only when we look at it - - in other words

Let's not pretend that either of us understand quantum physics. It is about atomic or sub-atomic level behavior, and it will remain a mystery to anyone who doesn't have the advanced math/physics knowledge.

[gthang]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Luckily for us, Galileo was a rebel. He set off an explosion into the prevailing belief.

Let's not pretend that either of us understand quantum physics. It is about atomic or sub-atomic level behavior, and it will remain a mystery to anyone who doesn't have the advanced math/physics knowledge.

Isn't Galileo a savior only for those who had it wrong? Did the whole world at that time believe the same thing? That is an essential assumption isn't it?

Evidence of stellar knowledge has to be dismissed as "just empirical data from looking at the sky". Just like the theory that the whole world was just an agrarian society and no advancement in sciences took place has to propogated. Inspite of several archaeological and literary works being found that does not fit the time line and have no explanations for.

This is essential for the linear evolution of Man theory to work. All contradictions are to be dismissed as belief and empirical knowledge. One might hypothesize that this is to compensate for the lack of historical greatness for a certain dominant race of people, but I would be accused of being a conspiracy theory believer, and we all know that such things don't exist, right?

The convenient interchange of Indian Astrology with Zodiac and other beliefs also helps in the dismissal of all.

Just like your knowledge of quantum physics is limited which prevents you from commenting on it, know that Astrology is not limited to just your life experiences, or whatever stories that happened to someone's Mama or Chacha. I might add that one's experiences if anything prejudices you especially if they were not favourable, which from your examples, it was not.

Cheers

[gkveda]

Originally Posted by AMG Power

While we may have "empirical evidence" that Science and Stupidity begin with S, this study may have just proven that Science can be a lot more than plain Stupid.

Here's why:

Quantum Physics has now proven that:

Reality is an illusion and exists only when we look at it - - in other words REALITY DOES NOT EXIST - one of the many links providing "proof":

https://consciouslifenews.com/new-mi...oking/1190900/

So according to Quantum physics:

(a) This thread does not exist
(b) Team Bhp does not exist
(c) You do not exist
(d) Nor does anyone else exist



So let's not blame them for saying astrology does not exist.

Does the statement "Reality does not exist" exist ?
Does the above post exist?

There are lot of logical fallacies in the link provided. I do not want to go into details of what those fallacies are.

But, most of the arguments that tries to prove un-scientific scenarios as science with the help of some related scientific facts will suffer from either of the three below limitations

1. Logical fallacies
2. They speak out of context of scientific facts that was used to prove the unscientific scenarios
3. Unscientific extrapolation of scientific evidences

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by gthang

Isn't Galileo a savior only for those who had it wrong? Did the whole world at that time believe the same thing? That is an essential assumption isn't it?

I am a bit shocked that you don't know the importance of Galileo to science. He is the guy who kick started modern science. He attacked the prevailing Church dogma so hard, it allowed future generation of scientists and philosophers to dare to overlook dogma. Until then it was unthinkable and dangerous to contradict dogma.

Originally Posted by gthang

Evidence of stellar knowledge has to be dismissed as "just empirical data from looking at the sky".

Why should empirical knowledge be dismissed? In fact, it is empirical knowledge/evidence that encouraged all scientists until 20th century to look for and discover new laws of science.

Originally Posted by gthang

All contradictions are to be dismissed as belief and empirical knowledge.

Why should anyone dismiss empirical knowledge? I don't understand why you are saying it.

Originally Posted by gthang

One might hypothesize that this is to compensate for the lack of historical greatness for a certain dominant race of people

Why should historical greatness matter? Should we put British empire on pedestal because they dominated between 15th-20th century? Should we put USA on a pedestal because they dominate the last 70 years? During 800-1250AD, Iraq was the world leader in science, where are they now? I don't agree with you. I don't believe science is owned by any dominant race or country. It came from everywhere, and the source is immaterial.

Originally Posted by gthang

The convenient interchange of Indian Astrology with Zodiac and other beliefs also helps in the dismissal of all.

Both are faith based. There is no difference from the science POV.

Originally Posted by gthang

Just like your knowledge of quantum physics is limited which prevents you from commenting on it, know that Astrology is not limited to just your life experiences, or whatever stories that happened to someone's Mama or Chacha.

But I know rules of science. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand.

Unlike laws of science (eg: quantum physics), rules of science are very simple and direct. It was formally defined 1000 years ago by an Iraqi scientist called Ibn al-Haytham*. It has remained unchanged. Since I have quoted it 3 times already in this thread, I won't repeat it. I don't expect you to learn complex laws of science, they require advance math. But rules of science are very simple, anybody can understand it.

*I just checked wiki and noticed he was actually from Iraq, who later migrated to Egypt. So he was from Iraq when it was the world leader in science.

[AMG Power]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Until 1685, everybody knew gravity existed, it is hard not to notice.

Contradicting our views on having proof to establish something exists arent we? Not to worry, usually happens when we run out of facts to prove a point.

You're now talking of views taken by empiricists who as stated in my earlier post have the exact opposite belief systems of scientists. As per the logic propounded in this thread the fact that Katrina Kaif and the lab technician knew it is not enough. The scientist must prove it to establish it exists. It's only when the scientist accepts it after having proof does anything (astrology or whatever) exist.

Originally Posted by Samurai

They just didn't know the laws of physics that governed gravity until then.

This is also as stated in my earlier post - the limits of human intelligence. And the fact that human intelligence is still extremely limited. To assume that everything is known to humans is in itself an indication of the lack of intelligence. To assume that something does not exist because human intelligence cannot prove its existence through methods known to humans is also an indication of the limitation of one's intelligence. And goes to prove my point - not proved before 1686, scientist will state it does not exist as on that date.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Let's not pretend that either of us understand quantum physics.

We're skating on thin ice aren't we? One doesn't need to be an automotive engineer to know that a car can transport you from A to B or an electrical engineer to know that you can press a switch to put on a light or know mathematics to know that gravity exists. And similarly, the results of this metaphysics experiment is mentioned in S I M P L E english so that everyone can understand - Reality does not exist.

Or to put it in the words of this experiment - you do not exist, I do not exist, this thread does not exist, team BHP does not exist, neither does earth, the universe and everything else that we may think exists exist.

Oops, I forgot to add astrology to that list.

Originally Posted by gkveda

Does the statement "Reality does not exist" exist ?
Does the above post exist?

Couldn't have made it simpler for someone to understand could I? Surprising you still don't get it.

Obviously that post does not exist. Neither do the logical fallacies you state nor any of the arguments. In fact even you and your post does not exist. That's the height of stupidity as I know it but some folks also refer to it as scientific proof.

And if you can, meet the experts and try and prove them wrong and then come here and state you did instead of stating you know the fallacies in Metaphysics in a thread on astrology in team BHP.

[gkveda]

Originally Posted by AMG Power

Couldn't have made it simpler for someone to understand could I? Surprising you still don't get it.

Obviously that post does not exist. Neither do the logical fallacies you state nor any of the arguments. In fact even you and your post does not exist. That's the height of stupidity as I know it but some folks also refer to it as scientific proof.

1. If your concept "Reality does not exist" exists, then, that concept is real. SO, REALITY Exists. Therefore, the concept is false.

2. When the post do not exist, how can someone who do not exist understand the post that donot exist

You are agreeing that the "understanding" exist because, you have understood but I have not understood in spite of you stating it very in simple words? What I mean here is, you are agreeing that the concept that "World does not exist" exists. Also, by saying you are "surprised" you are agreeing that "Surprising" Exists

How can these two exist? when "reality does not exist"

So, in my view, the argument is all full of logical fallacies "world does not exist" has no meaning at all.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by AMG Power

Contradicting our views on having proof to establish something exists arent we? Not to worry, usually happens when we run out of facts to prove our point.

What are you even saying? So you really don't understand the difference between empirical and scientific evidence?

Originally Posted by AMG Power

You're now talking of views taken by empiricists who as stated in my earlier post have the exact opposite belief systems of scientists. As per the logic propounded in this thread the fact that Katrina Kaif and the lab technician knew it is not enough. The scientist must prove it to establish it exists. It's only when the scientist accepts it after having proof does anything (astrology or whatever) exist.

I am trying to make you understand how science works, I am obviously failing. Scientists can't have a belief system, that is an oxymoron. Scientific evidence must have mathematical basis. Empirical is purely based on observations that are consistent, there is no mathematical explanation for it. Everything else is anecdotal.

Originally Posted by AMG Power

This is also as stated in my earlier post - the limits of human intelligence. And the fact that human intelligence is still extremely limited.

Yes, average human intelligence is not really up to discovering the laws of nature. Every century, a handful of extremely intelligent humans break open the next major paradox. Some scientists have been so important, if they had died in childhood, it would have put us 100-200-300 years behind on scientific progress, depending on who it was.

Originally Posted by AMG Power

We're skating on thin ice aren't we? One doesn't need to be an automotive engineer to know that a car can transport you from A to B or an electrical engineer to know that you can press a switch to put on a light or know mathematics to know that gravity exists. And similarly, the results of this metaphysics experiment is mentioned in S I M P L E english so that everyone can understand - Reality does not exist.

Your knowledge of classical physics is worthless in the quantum world. Are you trying to tell me you understand quantum physics and their implications? I surely don't understand it. I have tried many times, before realizing it can be understood only mathematically. And I don't have the math knowledge for it.

[SmartCat]

Regarding gravity and astrology:

Gravity has 100% repeatability. You drop a ball from a height, and every time, the ball drops down. Astrology does not have such repeatability (or accuracy). Out of 100 predictions, the number of right predictions depend on:

- how good the astrologer is (for those who believe astrology works) OR
- random probability of the predicted event occurring (for those who feel astrology is a superstition)

[Enobarbus]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I am trying to make you understand how science works, I am obviously failing. Scientists can't have a belief system, that is an oxymoron. Scientific evidence must have mathematical basis. Empirical is purely based on observations that are consistent, there is no mathematical explanation for it. Everything else is anecdotal.

I salute your monumental patience Samurai. Your clarity of thought is astounding. Your articulation is lucid. Some of the stuff you wrote in this thread will help me in my own arguments with some of my friends. Thanks for filling up some of the gaps in my knowledge and understanding.

[Nav-i-gator]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I am trying to make you understand how science works, I am obviously failing. Scientists can't have a belief system, that is an oxymoron. Scientific evidence must have mathematical basis. Empirical is purely based on observations that are consistent, there is no mathematical explanation for it. Everything else is anecdotal.

Ahh yes! There lies my perfect agreement with you. "empirical". Astrology, at best, is empirically "demonstrated" (not proven) patterns of repetitions - some things happening more than the mathematical probability would provide (but still lie in the probability distribution curve, and hence don't contradict with Science/mathematics).

There are n no of variables that affect the set of probable outcomes of any event (like, say, failure of a marriage) - and all of those variables are (from scientific point of view) un-quantifiable. Now, Astrology looks into empirically identified patterns - birth-chart of both partners and its' interpretation, and give you a "go or no-go" prescription for marriage.

BUT, unlike science, Astrological predictions can lead to altering the outcome, because it works on belief. Sort of self-fulfilling prophecy, or experimenter's bias. If you go against the astrologer's prescription to not go for marriage, you might start doubting the longevity of your married life on the slightest of misunderstandings in married life.

So yes, I agree. Astrology is not a science. At best, it has an empirical basis to believe.

[gkveda]

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

So yes, I agree. Astrology is not a science. At best, it has an empirical basis to believe.

I believe astrology does not even have empirical evidence.
1. There can be a hero and a villain who are born at same time, same place with same stars in those positions.
2. No Astrologer ever in the history of astrology (How ever Good he is claimed to be), has predicted 100% truth future. When I say, 100% truth, it clearly means, mathematically 100% accurate.
3. There are 100s of versions of astrology shastras that contradicts one another. While some Shastras accept a certain activity, other shastras denies. There cannot be two truths. So, there is a contradiction

So, there is not even empirical evidence. It is just that when there are finite possibilities, and few people predict one of them, few will be succeeding and few will fail

[Nav-i-gator]

Originally Posted by gkveda

I believe astrology does not even have empirical evidence.
1. There can be a hero and a villain who are born at same time, same place with same stars in those positions.
2. No Astrologer ever in the history of astrology (How ever Good he is claimed to be), has predicted 100% truth future. When I say, 100% truth, it clearly means, mathematically 100% accurate.
3. There are 100s of versions of astrology shastras that contradicts one another. While some Shastras accept a certain activity, other shastras denies. There cannot be two truths. So, there is a contradiction

So, there is not even empirical evidence. It is just that when there are finite possibilities, and few people predict one of them, few will be succeeding and few will fail

1. One's hero can be other's villain. As Einstein would have said - it all depends on the frame of reference

2. No one, not even scientists can "100%" accurately predict any future outcome before it has occurred. There is always some amount of uncertainty (accounting for the probabilities) on possible outcome of any event with multiple possible outcomes. Mathematics/science deal in probabilities and margins of error.

3. Contradictions happen in theoretical science as well. There can be multiple contradicting possibilities - none explicitly justified over others, and all equally possible. For every grandfather paradox, there is a nokinov self-consistency principle - a justification to a paradox; none can be verified.

Contrary to what I may have sounded - I was saying that Astrology works on empirical justification - in case of belief, error acceptance level is much higher. For some believers, even a 50% success rate of predictions is good enough. Because the failure means it was their destiny!

[gkveda]

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

1. One's hero can be other's villain. As Einstein would have said - it all depends on the frame of reference

What I am trying to say is, characters can entirely different. It is not dependent on stars position, time or place of birth as astrology claims.

2. No one, not even scientists can "100%" accurately predict any future outcome before it has occurred. There is always some amount of uncertainty (accounting for the probabilities) on possible outcome of any event with multiple possible outcomes. Mathematics/science deal in probabilities and margins of error.

But, science will have scientific method to explain why it is NOT 100% accurate (Can we call this method to madness )unlike the astrology where both predictions and justifications are unscientific

3. Contradictions happen in theoretical science as well. There can be multiple contradicting possibilities - none explicitly justified over others, and all equally possible. For every grandfather paradox, there is a nokinov self-consistency principle - a justification to a paradox; none can be verified.

Same as point 2.

[navin]

Originally Posted by AMG Power

(a) Scientist - Gravity does NOT exist. It hasn't been proven yet.

(b) Lab Technician - Maybe, I seem to get a feeling occasionally.

(c) Katrina Kaif - Of course, I feel it whenever I jump of a building along with Salman Khan for those action scenes.

Originally Posted by AMG Power

So let's not blame them for saying astrology does not exist.

Originally Posted by AMG Power

Contradicting our views on having proof to establish something exists arent we? Not to worry, usually happens when we run out of facts to prove a point.

It's only when the scientist accepts it after having proof does anything (astrology or whatever) exist.

Oops, I forgot to add astrology to that list.

And if you can, meet the experts and try and prove them wrong and then come here and state you did instead of stating you know the fallacies in Metaphysics in a thread on astrology in team BHP.

Jesus AMG, stop trolling. Samurai may be a patient man, but I am not.