How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?

Originally posted by Digi
Are you defending astrology? Or merely disagreeing with my approach? I'm curious. If you have a better approach to debunking it, I'd love to hear it.

Originally posted by Digi
Also, I would disagree with a couple of your assertions. The very first, that the burden of proof goes both ways, is wrong. By its very nature, the burden can't be on both sides. We don't know for sure. There's our default. Her claim of "it's real" carries the burden, not my claim that no evidence exists for it. Technically, "it's real" is unfalsifiable (or rather, "I believe it's real"😉, but the specific predictive claims of astrology are subject to empirical scrutiny.

If I claim that the square root of five isn't a rational number then the burden of proof is on me, and the burden of proof would be on you as well if you claimed that it was a rational number.

Originally posted by Digi
Second, related to that, any potential correlation that can only be explained supernaturally, as you put it, still needs to be explained for the claim to have any validity.

Assuming that there was a gypsy somewhere with a sixth sense that allowed her to see into the future, how would we—who lack said sixth sense—be able to examine it? We wouldn't. And therein lies the issue.

Originally posted by Digi
Otherwise, you're chastising me for not falsifying a make believe cosmic Force that we have know way of understanding, observing, or interacting with.

Astrology is a subject that would have to be refuted on a logical basis, you can't put it up for empirical scrutiny as if it was a scientific theory.

Originally posted by Astner
If you had two metrology forecasts that happen to contradict each other—and that either, or both, were wrong—would that dismiss the validity of metrology? Of course not.

If had two weather forecasters that I followed and they constantly contradicted each other and showed no correlation between either each other or reality, yes I would start to question the validity of meteorology. If found similar problem occurring on a worldwide scale I would dismiss meteorology.

Originally posted by Astner
Assuming that there was a gypsy somewhere with a sixth sense that allowed her to see into the future, how would we—who lack said sixth sense—be able to examine it? We wouldn't. And therein lies the issue.

Why Hello, David Hume, I have a bridge you can go jump off of.

If her predictions are no different from those of a person who does not claim such a sense it is proper to act as though she does not have such a sense, whether she does or not.

Originally posted by Astner
Astrology is a subject that would have to be refuted on a logical basis, you can't put it up for empirical scrutiny as if it was a scientific theory.

There are no astrological deists. All astrologers believe in an astrology that makes testable predictions. Show me an astrological deist and I'll shrug, no one cares what deists think anyway.

Originally posted by Astner

The burden of proof is always on the assert of the claim, regardless of what that claim may be.

Wouldn't you be annoyed if I told you that you had to offer up the evidence to refute phlogiston theory or the geocentric cosmological model? I'm not saying it isn't good to know why these things have been discredited, but to say that we need to be able to disprove them every time they're brought up is, as Sym suggested, idiotically Humean.

Astner isn't your typical astrology adherent, though, so I thin my original point stands. We're not dealing with people who are analyzing the nature of evidence and burdens of proof. We're dealing with people who think it's fun to think about and believe what they read in their horoscope. Their investigation goes no further.

So, as I said earlier, many can't be approached on logical grounds. When it comes to their beliefs, their approach is such that any attempt at empiricism will be ignored.

Originally posted by Astner
The latter.

Then how would you deconstruct it? Because most of your arguments don't suggest you're against astrology.

Originally posted by Astner
The burden of proof is always on the assert of the claim, regardless of what that claim may be.

Others have responded well to this, but it should also be clear that the claimants in this case are those saying it exists. Lack of evidence is a default position, not a claim. I have nothing to debunk, technically, because no evidence exists for astrology.

Originally posted by Astner
That's the issue, it doesn't. Empirical rigor is only necessary when we're dealing with sciences, no one would argue that astrology is a science.

Then what is it? How do we determine its validity? Or do we believe because we want to? I think you'll find this falls into the last of those.

Originally posted by Astner
Assuming that there was a gypsy somewhere with a sixth sense that allowed her to see into the future, how would we—who lack said sixth sense—be able to examine it? We wouldn't. And therein lies the issue.

Her claims or predictions would be subject to empirical scrutiny. The sixth sense itself would be unfalsifiable, but as Sym said, we're not talking about spiritual deists here. Astrology is an active belief that supposedly affects, influences, or predicts elements of life.

Originally posted by Astner
Astrology is a subject that would have to be refuted on a logical basis, you can't put it up for empirical scrutiny as if it was a scientific theory.

Again, you can put its predictions to scrutiny. How is that not obvious? It's the same with all religion. The existence of God is (currently) unfalsifiable. But the myriad claims of earthly religions are subject to investigation.

Originally posted by Oliver North
evidence of humans seeking patterns in noise is robust for adults.

No doubt. What I was referring to was the phenomena of children believing what they are told about the invisible Princess Alice.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Digi
I mostly struggle with clearly elucidating those points to people who are so set in their beliefs that they'll ignore anything else. Like, after annihilating astrology to a coworker who follows her horoscope, she responded with something akin to "Oh, it's always so interesting to hear your take, but I think there's something to it." Basically, a pat on the head and a casual dismissal of all points.

She's a smart woman, and is happy to discuss these things. But despite never hearing a cogent rebuttal from her on several topics, I've gotten her to consider exactly nothing outside her own belief bubble.

So it's not just that they can come to believe such things, but that they'll stick with those beliefs even against counter-evidence and lacking any logical grounding in them. That, to me, is more mystifying than coming to the beliefs in the first place.

I hear you and agree.

It would be fascinating to study this if it was not such a vicious and damaging tool that churches use against their believers.

I found that some will not even allow their preachers to tell the truth. Check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv_rmQuagpY&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I personally would like to hear the arguments for astrology.

Which one?

The one with 12 signs or the one with 13 that was the original but that the West never knew about. LOL.

Regards
DL

Who's DL?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Who's DL?

Eh. Me.

Regards
DL

Are you download?

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I hear you and agree.

It would be fascinating to study this if it was not such a vicious and damaging tool that churches use against their believers.

I found that some will not even allow their preachers to tell the truth. Check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv_rmQuagpY&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

Interesting video, thanks.

L L

No.

---------------------------

Digi

Thanks. Good that you found it interesting.

Regards
DL

How are children talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic? In many ways we never grow up. A more interesting question is why do we tell our children lies?