XPost: alt.atheism, alt.flame.jesus.christ, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 30-December-2014 11:53 PM, August Rode wrote:   
   > On 30/12/2014 5:11 AM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >> On 30-December-2014 2:03 PM, August Rode wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 29/12/2014 9:45 PM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >>>> On 30-December-2014 1:03 PM, bilgat@m.nu wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 08:14:50 +1100, felix_unger    
   >>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 30-December-2014 7:21 AM, bilgat@m.nu wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 07:05:20 +1100, felix_unger    
   >>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On 30-December-2014 1:45 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>     If you eager to believe in things with no proof I have some   
   >>>>>>>>> old astrology texts to sell you.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> if astrology is just nonsense, how  do you explain why it's   
   >>>>>>>> accurate in   
   >>>>>>>> describing ppl by their star signs?   
   >>>>>>> Felix how  old are you like 14?   
   >>>>>> no   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>    Everyone knows that that shit is made   
   >>>>>>> to be so generic that it can fit anyone. How many zodiacs have you   
   >>>>>>> read besides your own?   
   >>>>>> plenty. how many have you read? and Chinese astrology is   
   >>>>>> surprisingly   
   >>>>>> accurate as well. and then there's numerology.. :)   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Read others you will find that most of them   
   >>>>>>> will fit you in some way.   
   >>>>>> yes, 'in some way'. but when the profiles are (significantly) more   
   >>>>>> than   
   >>>>>> 50% accurate, ie. beyond the law of averages, for each star sign,   
   >>>>>> that's   
   >>>>>> indicative that there must be reasons for it. and the profiles for   
   >>>>>> each   
   >>>>>> star sign are significantly different, ie. they are are not just   
   >>>>>> generically similar.   
   >>>>> there are no laws of averages when you are talking about generics. it   
   >>>>> means it will apply to most people. from what you said that would   
   >>>>> mean   
   >>>>> that they are 50 % accutate for 100% of the people........   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> do you see the problem I am talking about.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> no I don't. If my star sign is (say) 90% accurate about me, and all   
   >>>> the   
   >>>> other star signs are only (say) 20% accurate about me, then that   
   >>>> indicates there is some validity to astrology   
   >>>   
   >>> And is that the case? Is the personality profile of your sign 90%   
   >>> accurate   
   >>   
   >> you should know. you've already replied to this..   
   >>   
   >> " I have a summary of my star signs personality   
   >> characteristics, which I just checked. of a total of 23 descriptors, 20   
   >> are accurate, 2 are inaccurate, and one is doubtful. "   
   >>   
   >>> while all others are only 20% accurate?   
   >>   
   >> none of the others describe me as well as my own star sign from what I   
   >> have seen   
   >   
   > Are the others only 20% accurate? Have you looked at the personality   
   > profiles from a number of sources, not just the one you've hinted at?   
      
   as I have said, I have not made any detailed study of this. I have   
   simply made an observation that my star sign describes me accurately   
   from those that I have seen.   
      
   >   
   > You really have no idea what confirmation bias is, why it's a problem   
   > or how to avoid it, do you?   
      
   no, I just simply don't agree that it is a case of that. I can read   
   other star signs and see how accurate they are in describing me without   
   any preconceived notion that they are inaccurate. you're suggesting I'm   
   incapable of doing that.   
      
   >   
   >>> Do you seriously think that there are only twelve personality profiles   
   >>> that everyone in the world slots into?   
   >>   
   >> I've not made a study of astrology,   
   >   
   > Now *that's* curious. If you haven't made a study of it, why are you   
   > claiming that it must have some validity?   
      
   there must be some reason for it to be able to describe ppl   
      
   >   
   >> but there are various qualifiers, as   
   >> I understand it, so in effect many more than twelve. and btw, some   
   >> methods of personality classification in psychology use a similar system   
   >> ie. have a few basic classifications and combine them as necessary. eg.   
   >> autistic epileptoid.   
   >   
   > Psychology doesn't base its personality profiles on external factors   
   > that have *nothing* to do with personality.   
   >   
   >>>>> you have just admitted to   
   >>>>> exactly to what I said.   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   rgds,   
      
   Pete   
   -------   
   It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png   
   Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com   
   http://pamelageller.com/   
   http://www.barenakedislam.com/   
   Brigitte Gabriel's answer to 'peaceful' moslems.. http://tinyurl   
   com/brigitteGab   
   "The right to free speech includes the right to offend"   
   "ISIS's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith"   
   -Barack Obama, idiotic President of the USA   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)