--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote:
> > I know exactly what my motives are for correcting your > misunderstandings of astrology (not for "defending" it > as a valid system; as I've said, I'm highly dubious of > it). I find your brand of arrogant ignorance disgraceful, > because it gets in the way of determining what's really > going on. It's actually *anti-scientific*. So you don't believe it either? You just like arguing, admit it. And you seem to have decided Jungs ideas are the *real* astrology? You should tell the all the other astrologers they are still measuring planetary positions and birth dates. And of course I'm anti-scientific for thinking about it but I notice you still can't point me in the direction of a study that shows a measurable signal, any positive hit would be a starting point. That's how science works. And of course, you aren't going to explain what astrology *really* is because I wouldn't understand, or do you just accept that the term "a-causal" must be right because it obviates the need for testing? Because you are wrong if you think it would. I suspect you just don't want to get into discussing Jung too deeply. Especially regarding how it affects astrology readings, but you've decided I'm not worth talking to due to my disgraceful arrogance. Which is handy for you. I read synchronicity yonks ago. It's one of those things you either believe or you don't and for every hit there is a miss, I've told you what I think of it. It really doesn't change how we might find out the validity of birth chart predictions. I actually don't care how you find my "brand" of thinking, until you, or anyone, comes up with some evidence to the contrary I will continue to think that astrology is a baseless belief system. S/N first.
