XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
From: me@nothere.biz
On 30-December-2014 1:08 PM, bilgat@m.nu wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:17:54 +1100, felix_unger
> wrote:
>
>> On 30-December-2014 9:31 AM, Steve O wrote:
>>> On 29/12/2014 21:14, 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.
>>>
>>> That's right.
>>> It's commonly known as "confirmation bias"
>> it's not simply that when the accuracy is beyond what would be achieved
>> by mere chance. 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.
> the fool is still trying to argue his point....
I see you are unable to deal with facts
>>>
>>>> and the profiles for each
>>>> star sign are significantly different, ie. they are are not just
>>>> generically similar.
>>> It doesn't matter if they are significantly different from each other
>>> or not.
>>> As long as the profile contains a description that someone will want
>>> to identify with, confirmation bias will occur.
>>>
>>>
>>> By the way, I've just tagged onto this conversation.
>>> Was the OP being serious about astrology or were they just joking?
>> joking
>
> And now he is joking.. I doubt that.. I bet the thinks harry potter is
> a real live wizard...
the OP was Steve O, moron, not me
>>> A friend of mine became a journalist after leaving college.
>>> One of the first jobs he was given at the small newspaper he worked
>>> for was to do the astrology column.
>>> Most smaller publications can't afford to pay a "real' astrologist, so
>>> the task was given to him.
>>> He simply gathered up old astrology predictions from old newspapers
>>> and magazines, and worded them slightly differently.
>>> It would only take him about ten minutes to put together the whole
>>> astrology column every day.
>>> There were quite a few readers who wrote in to tell the editor how
>>> astoundingly accurate he was in all of his predictions.
>> that's irrelevant to how accurate 'real' astrology is in describing ppl
>> according to their star signs
>
> yeah sure he was joking
Steve O was being sarcastic. look up sarcasm in a dictionary.
>
>>> So, when someone tells you that it's all generic made up shit, you can
>>> take their word for it.
>>>
>>>
>> It's not just 'made up shit' since it has a basis for it which is the
>> positioning of celestial bodies
> no it is all crap that was conjured long ago.
>
> Call harry potter maybe he can help you....
> Or maybe harry dresdon.. harry dresdon can kick harry potters ass
> anyday
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
