Rule 1. Back your argument up
Rule 2. Respect other people’s work
Rule 3. Know thyself
Rule 4. Be open to other ideas
Rule 5. Stick to the point
Rule 6. Discuss
If the topic you want to address is under discussion below, please double click the message you want to respond to and insert your response, instead of using the Comment box.
For an overview of all the Astrology and astrology-related pages click here
New topic:
2009-09-06 12:20:47 Good start! —NormanNitram
2009-09-07 12:21:21 Waddyu think, Johannes? —NormanNitram
2009-09-10 19:04:24 And waddyu think of this picture? A friend of mind created it. 
—PerigGouanvic
Astrology page
Jo, I tried to solve this problem with your page. A picture started not to show, for whatever reason. It seems the % parameter, for dimensions, did not work anymore!
On the theoretical side, can you develop on the role astrology might have, if it could be shown to be of value? —PerigGouanvic
2009-12-04 20:23:00
2010-10-05 12:56:53 Nice page, as I say. Given it a bit of Spring clean just —NormanNitram
2011-02-25 04:33:16 ![[WWW]](http://wikispot.org/wiki/eggheadbeta/img/sycamore-www.png){kind=small}
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/may/18/research.highereducation —PerigGouanvic
2011-02-26 20:27:54 Good one, Perig. This is interesting as it offers a 'possible' if not very plausible mechanism for astrological influence.
Muyself, I think the interesting thing about astrology is how it might work despite there being no actual cause/effect connecton. I like the synchronicity idea.
This is in the text I'm preparing for Jo. As is the fact that scientists have disproved astrology with the same 'twins argument' since 300 BCE! It just keeps reappearing as new proof... that ought to make us susupicious.
Here it is in that Grauiad piece again:
"Last year, Geoffrey Dean, who left astrology to become a scientist in Perth, carried out what is probably the most robust scientific investigation into astrology ever undertaken. He led a study of 2,000 people, most born within minutes of one another, and looked at more than 100 different characteristics, ranging from IQ to ability in art and sport, from anxiety levels to sociability and occupation - all of which astrologers claim are influenced by heavenly bodies. He found no evidence of the similarities that astrologers would have predicted."
Yah boo to that!
2011-08-04 21:04:53 Time to reopen the investigation. I'm just going to start a page now at Mark's suggestion, on the great philosophers and their star-signs. Then we will see how they fit - or not! —docmartin
2011-09-15 21:17:51 Good overview here : http://www.astrologer.com/tests/basisofastrology.htm —PerigGouanvic
2011-09-15 21:20:01 Scathing critic of G. Dean, mentioned above, in the reference I just mentioned:
Geoffrey Dean: Many sceptical websites cite the work of Dr Dean, a one-time astrologer, now astrology's most ardent sceptic who yet claims there may be something in astrology. However, his sceptical evidence doesn't bear close scrutiny: [More]
Dean's Phantom Time-Twin Study: Dean's study involving 2,101 people born in London between 3-9 May 1958 sounds promising. Though he refers to it in his paper on PSI (2003) [www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf page 188] (Dean, forthcoming), Dean is yet to publish his results and will not share this government data. As I write, Dean has sat on this data for seven years prompting some to wonder if there has been a cover-up of unreported significant patterns int the time twin data. (The test is still uncritically cited on many websites including Wikipedia).
Dean's GIGO Meta Analysis: While I favour multiple comparisons of experiments to overcome minor imperfections or the limited conclusions that come from small sample sizes, my contention is that Dean's Meta-Analysis suffers from being based a collection of historical experiments that are fatally flawed or irrelevant (like Sun Sign tests) or incorrectly analysed (e.g Carlson). With Dean's analysis no one can check the evidence. Since 2007, while the Meta-Analysis results are proudly displayed, the references listed at the bottom state "A list of the studies meta-analysed above is in preparation."[1] In correspondence, Dean was unable to cite a test that I considered could justify inclusion. Dean also now believes that the Carlson test (1985) is outdated, how does this square up with his inclusion of tests before 1980? So in this instance the Meta-Analysis suffers from GIGO or the fallacy that Many Wrongs do not make a Right. http://rudolfhsmit.nl/d-meta2.htm —PerigGouanvic
Interesting! Yes, I had a look at some of that on the RS site... DM
2011-09-16 23:54:33 a new journal is devoted to the great cycles :
Archai: The Journal of Archetypal Cosmology Volume 2 (Fall 2010)
Cultural Crisis and Transformation: Exploring Archetypal Patterns in World News and Culture
This one is free : World Transits 2000-2020 - An Overview.
Richard Tarna http://www.archaijournal.org/Tarnas_World_Transits_2000-2020_An_Overview.pdf
Good complement what's in the works on this page. —PerigGouanvic
2011-09-17 12:06:03 Hey, Perig, as I've pleaded with you before... can you sum up in one or two sentences what you have in mind... not just give links and 'clues'... —docmartin
