|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 08/23/2004 : 11:29:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
First of all, I am shocked (SHOCKED) that you are even curious on whether or not an assertation made by an ASTROLOGIST is scientific.
This is new "evidence". Whenever new evidence comes along, you must reconsider a claim, not matter how absurd.
Ah, but is it when the source is suspect? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2004 : 12:14:19 [Permalink]
|
Warning! Unsolicited Hitler comparison!
Is evidence of the Jewish global conspiracy valid if it comes from Hitler? Lame I know. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2004 : 12:32:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
Ah, but is it when the source is suspect?
Are you saying that we should ignore any claim of evidence when presented by astrologists because it came from people who want to show that their claim is true? I agree, we must skeptically consider the evidence, repeat the experiments with different scientists etc, but to not consider it at all? Thats just wrong.
When it comes without source cites, yep. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
SciFi Chick
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2004 : 12:43:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
Ah, but is it when the source is suspect?
Are you saying that we should ignore any claim of evidence when presented by astrologists because it came from people who want to show that their claim is true? I agree, we must skeptically consider the evidence, repeat the experiments with different scientists etc, but to not consider it at all? Thats just wrong.
It's not any more wrong than mistrusting creationists. Changing your vocabulary to use words like Intelligent Design science, does not make something scientific. |
"There is no 'I' in TEAM, but there is an 'M' and an 'E'." -Carson
"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud."
-Sophocles |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2004 : 00:30:25 [Permalink]
|
You've all confused me here. Are we talking about the article in the original post or the news account or something else?
The news account stupidly brought up astrology when they heard the terms 'correlated to birth month'. Astrology was NEVER really related to the research at all.
And as far as claims by astrologers or Hitler, if the evidence is valid there's no reason not to look at it. If the conclusions drawn by the presenter are not supported by the evidence then that is the issue, not the presenter's background. Now if the presenter's conclusions are being questioned and they believe the evidence does support the conclusion, the presenter's credentials might be relevant.
Astrologer finds more disease X in persons born in April.
Astrologer concludes the planets were the determining factor.
Evidence is confirmed.
Conclusion is not.
Everyone sees your point and agrees conclusion is faulty.
Except Steve who thinks the astrologer's conclusion is credible.
Astrologer's credentials and the lack of validity of astrology are presented to show Steve why you are smart and he is dumb.
Steve sees your point and the world is now a better place. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
