"So when you say "Nonsense, it's impossible!" you don't actually mean that you have made up your mind, bt you are still open to proof?"
I mean I am extremely confident in my dismissal, and it would take some extremey impressive proof to change my mind. If you'll alow me to be snarky in response, I'm pretty certain there are a lot of propositions to which your initial response would be "Nonsense!", but to which you remain, in theory at least, open to having your mind changed by sufficiently strong evidence. "Show me!" will not be your response to someone who claims Menzies Campbell is a lizard in human disguise - there is a big difference between what conclusive scientific proof requires and what either of us would actually require to be convinced, but I'm being clear about my pragmatic stance.
Astrology is what astrologers do, yes. Is there an important difference between what qualified and unqualified astrologers do? No - neither is using scientifically tested methods, and neither group is producing interesting results - so the distinction between them is entirely arbitrary. If an unqualified astrologer uses a particular set of methods, those methods are as much part of the practice of astrology as any other set. If you haven't tested all methods, used by all all practicing astrologers, you haven't tested astrology completely.
The reason you stop at qualified astrologers, and don't go on testing indefinitely is that, as you say, you are short of time. So you test what you believe are a representative set of methods, and you ignore the methods that are different in unimportant ways. But your judgement of what is unimportant depends on your understanding of how astrology _could_ work.
I mean I am extremely confident in my dismissal, and it would take some extremey impressive proof to change my mind. If you'll alow me to be snarky in response, I'm pretty certain there are a lot of propositions to which your initial response would be "Nonsense!", but to which you remain, in theory at least, open to having your mind changed by sufficiently strong evidence. "Show me!" will not be your response to someone who claims Menzies Campbell is a lizard in human disguise - there is a big difference between what conclusive scientific proof requires and what either of us would actually require to be convinced, but I'm being clear about my pragmatic stance.
Astrology is what astrologers do, yes. Is there an important difference between what qualified and unqualified astrologers do? No - neither is using scientifically tested methods, and neither group is producing interesting results - so the distinction between them is entirely arbitrary. If an unqualified astrologer uses a particular set of methods, those methods are as much part of the practice of astrology as any other set. If you haven't tested all methods, used by all all practicing astrologers, you haven't tested astrology completely.
The reason you stop at qualified astrologers, and don't go on testing indefinitely is that, as you say, you are short of time. So you test what you believe are a representative set of methods, and you ignore the methods that are different in unimportant ways. But your judgement of what is unimportant depends on your understanding of how astrology _could_ work.
Reply
Leave a comment