[Closed] Tarot readers / psychics - load of old cobblers?

Unless someone has fallen down a well. Dogs are great at that.

Or is that kangaroos..

Both.

[img] [/img] [img] [/img]

And dolphins too.

[img] [/img]

GrahamS - Member
Well I have to bow to your superior googling,... all those folks I didn't hire over all those years on misinformation.
Really it took me less than 2 minutes of googling to show what complete nonsense that was.

Did you never think to maybe question your "facts" a little bit?

Er why? So i could prevail in a discussion on an internet forum about er Astrology something I don't get and was actually asking a question about anyway?

Rather than just blindly accepting that personality traits can be neatly bundled into 12 different types based on the apparent position of our sun, relative to the perceived position of stars literally trillions of miles away, at the time of someone's birth.

And accepting that so thoroughly that you claim to have made career decisions based on it!

Well lucky for me, it's my money I'm about to waste on one of those 12 divisions of human personality traits which, before the advent of psychometric testing were as good as any other method for deciding wether the lying slacker that's sat there in front of you at the interview table was going to do what you asked of him or her rather than spend all day on an internet forum or Facebook..

If you'd have done that to me, I'd sue you for every penny you've got, you stupid numbskull.
Pffftt.. typical Taurus.

As for the likes of woppit and the no win no fee lawyers that offer to make that idle threat an actual fact should for example it be down to his age, or other imagined impediment to him not being successful in his application, the birth date is generally there clear to see before you even get an interview so he'd never know.

So an even more effective means of sorting through a bunch of interviews, Hmm 'no-one born between March 21st and April 20th need apply' that would go down well in an advert, I wonder how long it would take for legislation to be enacted along the lines of astrological discrimination. 😆

[img] [/img]

the birth date is generally there clear to see before you even get an interview so he'd never know.

HE so we can add sexism to this as well..shakes head in disbelief

Trolling but entertaining

Junkyard - Member
the birth date is generally there clear to see before you even get an interview so he'd never know.
HE so we can add sexism to this as well..shakes head in disbelief

Trolling but entertaining

That astrological bollox dated back to the print and graphics industry where, if you were looking to take on trainees into a particularly creative environment and you had no other method to sort through lots and lots of potential applicants, then generally Gemini and Sagitarians would place ahead if there were no obvious other method to chose from for the graphics and creative roles whereas there were others specific to other tasks, it's a long time ago now, I forget what they all were, but it was a phase back in the late seventies early eighties.. But it did happen, not a troll and I wasn't the only person using what would it be called these days, astrological profiling?,

Ah so the one that uses [b]impartial[/b] and [b]demonstratably objective [/b]data is the one that is dogma and blind.

The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. If you looks at the work of Thomas Kuhn he has has promoted the concept that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. So it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data

The problem with science is that it is very easy to treat it as an absolute rather than based on a series or repeatable observation that can influenced by tester bias, it can therefore never be truly impartial or demonstrably objective without acknowledging it's limitations.

If you cannot see why Grum takes the piss out of stuff like this then I pray your future seeing is superior to your present seeing.

Grum gobs off at anything I've written, bike related, music related, anything really, he's **** and one of the few folk I'd dearly like to meet in person so he can so witty to my face.

[i]or repeatable observation [/i]

This is the key. Repeatability and repeatability under test conditions rather than anecdote.

Grum seems OK to me; he will tell me off for being a dick which is usually well deserved. I like to think that his second name is Py 😀

This is the key. Repeatability and repeatability under test conditions rather than anecdote.

totally agree....with that bit anyway 😀

On the subject of astrology, I remember reading yonks ago in Fortean Times an article (my google powers are weak today) suggesting that [b]if[/b] there is a statistically significant link between behaviour and date of birth, it could be explained by organic matter (e.g. panspermia) being delivered to the upper atmosphere via clouds of micro meteorites along earths orbit (with each cloud being slightly different, each taking about a month to pass through - you get the idea), which then affects foetal development. IIRC something like 50, 000 tonnes of material enters the atmosphere every year.

Interesting, but I'm a big fan of occam and his razor myself, or as crikey puts it: -

crikey - Member

If they were any good, why are they doing card reading at a few quid a time?

O.T., and in the vein of "jokes only geeks get", a friend told me he got a job 'remote sensing' for the government. It turns out he was checking forestry cover, NOT sitting in a cave figuring out what iranian nuclear scientists were up to 😳

Grum gobs off at anything I've written, bike related, music related, anything really, he's * and one of the few folk I'd dearly like to meet in person so he can so witty to my face.

So hang on, I say this:

Wow you really don't ever let up with the whole niche thing do you.

And you call me a short, fat stalker, then seemingly threaten to beat me up - and I'm the *?

Thanks crikey, love you too sexy. xx

🙂

I kind of understand; it's quite easy to feel someone doesn't like you because of the lack of nuance..

I had a Ouija board experience when I was about 14, and it was all done really well; the Granny took the girl aside and warned her in a stage whisper not to play with things she didn't understand, then 4 of us got involved in the whole lights off, scary glass moving thing.

The girl admitted to me about 10 years later that it had all been set up by her Granny, she'd been taught about how to do it, even managing a tearful scared face just before they came home, swearing us to silence...

The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. If you looks at the work of Thomas Kuhn he has has promoted the concept that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. So it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data

The problem with that post-modernist view of truth is that it's basically bollocks. A glass of water has a certain volume, temperature, number of atoms etc. Trying to argue that "volume" or "temperature" are not "theory-neutral" may be fun, but it doesn't reflect reality in any meaningful way.

Of course, you may want to pose questions like "what is reality?", but if you do it near me I'll pour that glass of water over your head, and you'll soon find out.

A glass of water has a certain volume, temperature, number of atoms etc. Trying to argue that "volume" or "temperature" are not "theory-neutral" may be fun, but it doesn't reflect reality in any meaningful way.

Go on then [b]exact[/b] number of atoms in 100ml of water at STP?

1.67 * 10^23 molecules x 20.

Simples.

1.67 * 10^23 molecules x 20.

based on Avogadro's principle? or the new SI Mole there is a difference, so It's an approximate number not an EXACT number 😀

I'm doing my best!

Go on then exact number of atoms in 100ml of water at STP?

No idea, but that doesn't change the fact that 100ml of pure water has an exact number of molecules. It's not something that two scientists would ever disagree about - they may well disagree with the measurement, the method used to measure it, etc., but the reality is "theory-neutral".

so It's an approximate number not an EXACT number

No idea, but that doesn't change the fact that 100ml of pure water has an exact number of molecules. It's not something that two scientists would ever disagree about - they may well disagree with the measurement, the method used to measure it, etc., but the reality is "theory-neutral".

if we look at the SI mol, it was applied as an agreed fiddle factor to smooth out the Avogadro principle, so we now have an method for determining an agreed number of atoms in 100 ml of water at STP, but it will be different from that used before the SI agreement, so the scientists may well disagree that the exact number is 10. you can achieve theory neutral but the theory has to be suitably woolly to allow for the deviations.

Exact number of atoms in 100 mL of water can be quite a hard question, depending on who is asking it.
I don't think anyone could ever state an exact number, given the tiny uncertainty inherent to Avogadro's number. It could only ever be x molecules +/- y. Times by 3 for atoms.

Garry, exactly

The problem with that post-modernist view of truth is that it's basically bollocks. A glass of water has a certain volume, temperature, number of atoms etc

so it is possible 10 glasses each with 100ml of water at STP will contain different numbers of atoms, unlike mogrims stance in which all will be exactly identical

I think you're tying to catch him out unnecessarily - really all scientists would agree that the glass of water contains x molecules subject to a certain error margin. That error margin would be accepted by all as arising from the accuracy that the Avogadro number can be measured. This in turn is based on accepted atomic theory etc etc.

so it is possible 10 glasses each with 100ml of water at STP will contain different numbers of atoms, unlike mogrims stance in which all will be exactly identical

As all scientists agree with the reality of the situation you seem to have disproved your own point about it being subjective as all appear to objectively agree.
Proving that things are difficult to measure on the atomic level adds nothing to your original point re physic abilities nor does it add weight to your we all perceive objective reality differently as we all agree on reality.

Proving that things are difficult to measure on the atomic level adds nothing to your original point re physic abilities nor does it add weight to your we all perceive objective reality differently as we all agree on reality.

It's a bit more fundamental than that, I think tazzymtb is not just arguing that out perceptions of reality are different, but that there is no such thing as objective "reality", it's all subjective.

nah I'm just arguing cos it's fun, It's all bollards and I rely on hardcore science for my job, still it entertains junky 😀

but on a pure science level

our perceptions of reality are different

and

adds nothing to your original point re physic abilities

at no point did I mention physcic abilities. I clearly stated that tarot is not a means of predicting future but a tool to help focus the mind in meditation. See differing perceptions of reality

I wonder why you big hitting geek boys don't go off now and again and set your own thread up to talk amongst yourselves, maybe discuss a Unix manual and it's relevance to gear ratios on a single speed up winter fold hill or something. Let us psychics talk mumbo jumbo amongst ourselves...

Didn't see that coming!

Let us psychics talk mumbo jumbo amongst ourselves...

But then who would be there to offer you some FACTS ?

Kaesae?

still it entertains junky

What's with this confirmation bias? 😆

You must be that gullible to have to confirm when asked.

If the person is genuinely gifted then you do not even have to confirm anything but only listen. S/he will simply say what comes into his/her mind and let you decide ... no need to confirm.

Ask them about your past but do not confirm then your present, again do not confirm but listen, then finally ask the person about your future. If the person cannot accurately describe your past or present then just walk away. But if the person can then you might want to stick around to listen then do your own experiment by monitoring if all that been said about the future appear. Ask in detail for all that happened and are going to happen. Some can give you exact details while others proximity as there are some who are 100% gifted while others less so. Just like doctors some can be very good at diagnosing but others are simply doing trial and error. Remember the doctor that keep prescribing many different medication? They are just applying the trial and error. Yes, you did not die and yes you got cured but the bottom line is that the doctor has some knowledge of what to do but they do not have absolutely knowledge.

If the person can accurately describe your past and present then the chance of getting your future right can be rather high. Why rather high? Because the future is not cast in stone but depending on your past and present actions. Some past/present actions might result in instance result for you to experience or to see, while others you will never experience or see in this life.

However, if you have made up your mind that there is no such thing then by all means do not believe in them. Just rationalise the events but try not to go crazy over them by "backward engineering".

As I once told my engineering friend with scientific mindset (positivist) ... "Your body clock is ticking and your body is slowly dying or rotting, one day you will turn into carbon and become fertiliser so why are you trying to prolong your living when you already know the outcome? Why do you worry so much? Why not enjoy as much as you can while you are still alive instead of worrying?" You see my engineering friend is not rational considering that he still fear that he will have no money for pension and might go hungry ... well put it this way if he retires at 65 and assuming he only has 10 years pension money to live on he will be 75 by that time and if he sells off his house he can easily feed himself for at least another 10 years until 85. Beyond 85 then he can easily let the govt takes care of him ... so why he worries I do not know. Rational? Ya right ... told him all those extra money would be useless once he become carbonised.

So the same questions to all you positivists or those with scientific minds:

1. When will you expect to turn carbon? How long do you still have?

2. Why keep accumulating all those wealth when you know you have no used for them after you turn carbon. No, passing down to your kids make no sense since you are going to turn carbon and love has nothing to do with it if you are carbon. Kaput! Gone! No memory whatsoever! Fertiliser!

😈

As I've now decided I'm your official forum psychic, I can confirm you are all going to die.

And that since you cannot take your money with you I suggest you order a Transition Carbon Covert to enjoy your riding whilst you still can.

[url= http://www.deathclock.com ]As to how long you have left try this.[/url]

So the same questions to all you positivists or those with scientific minds:

1. When will you expect to turn carbon? How long do you still have?

2. Why keep accumulating all those wealth when you know you have no used for them after you turn carbon. No, passing down to your kids make no sense since you are going to turn carbon and love has nothing to do with it if you are carbon. Kaput! Gone! No memory whatsoever! Fertiliser!

Ah, but given enough time the sun will engulf the world, and my atoms will be scattered amongst the stars. 8)