yep that sums it up quite nicely

"many other ways" and "many other Western esoteric traditions"

How have these "many other ways" proved "useful" to people? Please provide concrete examples. Given there are many, then you should be able to produce several examples.

You are refered yet again to the books I have refered for source material and case studies..........are you a retard or do you just not bother reading my posts..........you want some souyrce material help yourself duhhhhhhh

firstly, if you're an engineer, why are you unable to engineer a spell check? centuaries? reguardless? pschological? come on man...at least try.

Secondly, can you please list some of these traditions that don't pay heed to the stars, but employ astrological attributions.

Thirdly, bigotry is unjustified intolerance. I'm intolerant of child rape, and mass killings...but that doesn't make me a bigot. Some things are deserving of intolerance, and Randi hates con artists. Good for him, I'm not such a big fan myself.

The same souls who go on about bigot this, bigot that...seem to me, to also go on about fundamentalist aethists, and other drivel. There's no aethist canon, there's no skeptics cannon...the denial of a retarded reality isn't an assertion of any specific other reality.



People may resent his antagonistic style...but a bigot?

tarot, alchemy, rosicrusianism, golden dawn, god knows how many masonic chapters...............

Now I guess I'll get slagged off for mentioning them.

Oh ond I dont give a fuk that ur so analy retentive that u kant handle typos.

-Astrology (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/astrology), Merriam-Webster

---



EIT for now, although I may put getting my P. Eng. on hold for a while.



There's a difference between something being useful (like, for instance, useful idiots) and something being a useful model.

Please refer to Yudkowsky's A Technical Explanation Of Technical Explanation (http://yudkowsky.net/rational/technical).

Let's say that your psychological model, which you have inaccurately named astrology, discusses two personality traits. Further, let's say that these traits are measurable to a high degree of precision. If you don't like these assumptions, bear in mind that I'm stacking the deck in your favor.

The following is not a useful model:

"Some people have trait #1 and trait #2."

This is more an observation than a model. To prove that it is true, you simply have to provide two instances (because people is plural) of people who have trait #1 and trait #2. Once you have found them, the "model' does not tell you anything more. It does not say how many people have trait #1 and trait #2.

So you rephrase it.

"More than 50% of people that have trait #1 have trait #2."

This is closer to being a useful model. But because we don't want to have to survey every single person on Earth, we rephrase it as:

"The likelihood of a randomly selected person with trait #1 having trait #2 is more than 50%."

This is, loosely speaking, a model. But it has a few problems. The first is that you're making a prediction as to the odds of A implying B, but you haven't made a similar prediction as to the odds of (not A) implying B.

An exaggerated example: If trait #1 were "liking pie" and trait #2 were "having been born", 100% of people with trait #1 would have trait #2. Your model's a grand slam! Except that it doesn't show any correlation between #1 and #2, because 100% of people with the trait of "not liking pie" also have the trait of "having been born".

So we rephrase.

"Given a randomly-selected person:
If they have trait #1, the likelihood of them having trait #2 is more than 50%.
If they do not have trait #1, the likelihood of them having trait #2 is less than 50%."

..........



I take your point and make no claim and never have that Astrology is a scientific model just that it has prooved useful to many people for further examples of this you can look up the source material in the case studies in Dr Jung's books and see for yourself the processes involved. I personally use some of the concepts when talking to people whio are into Astrology and pyschology in a big way, as it makes communications about certain psychological phenomena easier.

If you dont want to use the model that's OK nobodies making you.....

yep that sums it up quite nicely

Which part of what I posted sums what up nicely?

Scratch your fleas however makes you happy, just try to keep the **** throwing to a minimum.Already on it (and have been for some time), thanks.

Although I guess what you really mean is "Do as I say, not as I do."

Although I guess what you really mean is "Do as I say, not as I do."

The burden of the bodhisattva.

Which part of what I posted sums what up nicely?

most of the quote especially; "Many skeptics have difficulty understanding the difference between studying a belief and believing it"

The burden of the bodhisattva.http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9025/sighh.jpg

most of the quote especially; "Many skeptics have difficulty understanding the difference between studying a belief and believing it"

That's funny, because so far you seem to express the belief that Jung clearly believed in astrology, or at least thought the archetypes defined in astrology were useful as is, whereas the quote I posted clearly states that the only reason Jung studied astrology was because people believed in it and he was trying to understand what needs it fulfilled so he could identify archetypes not use the archetypes readily provided by astrology.

You are refered yet again to the books I have refered for source material and case studies..........are you a retard or do you just not bother reading my posts..........you want some souyrce material help yourself duhhhhhhh

If you are unable to adequately articulate any concrete examples then its OK to just say so. You're sounding like such an Aries right now, by which I mean a complete fuckwit.

That's funny, because so far you seem to express the belief that Jung clearly believed in astrology, or at least thought the archetypes defined in astrology were useful as is, whereas the quote I posted clearly states that the only reason Jung studied astrology was because people believed in it and he was trying to understand what needs it fulfilled so he could identify archetypes not use the archetypes readily provided by astrology.

Jung very definitely believed in psychic phenomena as real things that actually happened. And that belief informed pretty much everything he did. I don't know exactly how he felt about astrology, but you don't want to start painting him as some sort of skeptic saint.

Jung very definitely believed in psychic phenomena as real things that actually happened. And that belief informed pretty much everything he did. I don't know exactly how he felt about astrology, but you don't want to start painting him as some sort of skeptic saint.

I'm just trying to get a clear view of his opinion on astrology. Most astrology sites I found like to quote mine and assert he did indeed believe, but more unbiased discussion seems to assert something more in line with what I posted above, meaning he was interested in the fact that people believed in astrology and what those beliefs meant about people.

I'm just trying to get a clear view of his opinion on astrology. Most astrology sites I found like to quote mine and assert he did indeed believe, but more unbiased discussion seems to assert something more in line with what I posted above, meaning he was interested in the fact that people believed in astrology and what those beliefs meant about people.

To an extent that is true but he also maintained that systems like Astrology had a particluar quaility that made them ameanable to psychological analysis. Jung on many many occasions cast birth charts for clients to get different perspectives so in a sense he did believe Astrology was a useful tool. The quote you use isnt actually by Jung it is somebody's take on him........like I have mine........each to their own as they say...

To an extent that is true but he also maintained that systems like Astrology had a particluar quaility that made them ameanable to psychological analysis. Jung on many many occasions cast birth charts for clients to get different perspectives so in a sense he did believe Astrology was a useful tool. The quote you use isnt actually by Jung it is somebody's take on him........like I have mine........each to their own as they say...

That's retarded, of course a psychologist is going to try to find common ground that makes communicating with people useful. If the person you're talking to believes in astrology, and you discuss things in their life as it relates to their belief of astrology, they're going to be on comfortable ground and will communicate better, allowing you to make better judgement calls. That does not prove astrology, or in any way mean that even the idea of astrology is useful out side of that particular conversation.

I'm quite sure your former life as a born again was even more shallow. You just haven't come nearly as far as you think you have. You've substituted one really stupid all answering dogma for a slightly less stupid one.

But you are still looking for smug certainty over truth.

[pondering what percentage of current brights are former fundies.]

This is pretty hypocritical as you've been one of the most smug people on the thread. Also, if you meant that his skepticism was less stupid than his born-again christianity, you said it wrong. The way you have it now, his born-again christianity was the slightly less stupid one.

Just bustin chops.