home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Urban-Lurain's 'Astrology as science'
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 157
Location: Canada

Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


I was never convinced by the model of the mind being similar in nature to a computer, which Dean et al seem to take as a given in this section. If anyone has any comments on the arguments I'd be interested to hear them.

It would take me several hours to respond in detail to every falsity in their arguments, so I will just stay with the basics here.

1. Figure 5 (the superchart) is a joke. We could produce a similar figure for human anatomy (showing all bones, muscles, veins, etc), and use that as proof for the impossibility of the medical sciences.

2. The comparison of astrology to judging aesthetic quality of artwork is supposed to be objectively valid?

3. They have no idea what they are talking about regarding to chess. Chess-players don't approach the problem as described.

4. They are totally wrong when calculating the possible combinations in a chart.

5. Complexity doesn't preclude the discovery of simple patterns. The assumption is that our ancestors were exact replicas of today's man, which is false. Also, the complexity of life far exceeds anything else, and we are still successful in managing and discovering simple patterns.

6. They talk about the 'dismal Vernon Clark results' here whereas in section 9.6 they quote him as 'his results have fatal problems,' i.e. they cannot be used for any argument. Self-contradiction, Mr. Dean.

7. Skinner's pigeons? Please, give me a break, is this a scientific argument?

In summary, their arguments are disappointingly shallow, self-contradictory, based on false assumptions, factually incorrect, pseudoscientific and seem to be agenda-driven. Need I say more? Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated