[Noisebridge-discuss] Lunar Lunacy

Wed Dec 28 19:36:47 UTC 2011

Hi Tony, 

Your suggestion and Zine publication sounds good. I'm sure that I'll be really busy in the next two weeks and I hope to be off line and on the road after that but we will see about that.

I'll wish you best of luck, I'll try my contact in Czech Republic to recommend some good astrology publications, I know some highly regarded too but he is expert I'm not (I tended to go rather for classic like Papus, he is maybe harder to understand but as a doctor of medicine and very good observer he goes "to the bone". Some of his observations found in his works are just amazing based on his time).

Talk to you soon, back to the kitchen!

Frantisek Algoldor Apfelbeck

biotechnologist&kvasir and hacker

http://www.frantisekapfelbeck.org

"There is no way to peace, peace is the way." Ghandi

________________________________
 From: Tony K. LeTigre <anthonyletigre at gmail.com>
To: Gopiballava Flaherty <gopiballava at gmail.com>; Frantisek Apfelbeck <algoldor at yahoo.com>; ryanobjc at gmail.com 
Cc: Zephyr Pellerin <zephyr.pellerin at gmail.com>; gnnr <gnnrok at gmail.com>; alex at primerlabs.com; miloh <froggytoad at gmail.com>; mek at hyperinkpress.com 
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 12:14 PM
Subject: Lunar Lunacy

Frantisek, Gopiballava, & co. (sending this to a few others I've spoken to recently rather than to the whole Discuss list)

I would be happy to print an Astrology Debunked / In Defense of Astrology "Opposing Viewpoints" thing in the first issue of our Noisebridge Zine in Progress (ZiP). It could be a condensation of what's been said in this thread. If someone wants to send me a more or less print-ready summation of the arguments, or their side of the argument, it would help me out, since I have my hands full putting the whole thing together. It could be a straight, serious argument. I would also welcome satire. 
(For instance, someone arguing "in favor" of astrology in a satirical 
voice - i.e. actually mocking it, a la Stephen Colbert.) I need by Jan. 10, sooner if possible. 

Personally I feel Frantisek is right that there are things modern science doesn't or can't account for. Apropos of this, I'm reading Robert O. Becker's "The Body Electric" right now, key text of this whole concept of electromagnetics & an alternate theory of the origin of life (moving away from Primordial Soup miasma). Then again, Becker was a scientist who rigorously applied scientific methods to his experiments & despite the side of me that indulges in mysticism, belief Magick, half-belief in astrology, etc. I also have a strong scientific, Mr. Spockish rational side & greatly respect the methods of science as well. The "science vs. mysticism" debate is of course as old as the hills. (How old are the hills, anyway?)

If there's anything else you'd rather submit for the ZiP, I welcome suggestions. I'm hoping to have a nice spread covering 28c3 from people who attend, since it's so integral to the global hacker community. (No airfare to Berlin for me.)

TTYS

+0ny

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Gopiballava Flaherty <gopiballava at gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 27, 2011, at 20:46, Frantisek Apfelbeck <algoldor at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Look I'm really sorry but I feel from your approach that you do want to ignore large part of spectrum and it is not a high morale but this feeling which is just telling me not to waste my time.
>
>That is a very rude and insulting thing to suggest. I have deliberately decided I don't want to believe things that are true?
>
>The only grain of truth in that is that I don't want to believe things that are false.
>
>In my experience, I am frequently far more knowledgeable about the factual claims of false things than most of the people who believe them to be true. Perhaps I just waste too much time researching stuff, but accusing me of wanting to ignore is ridiculously off base. It is especially ironic given that there were aspects of lunar effects on people that, coming in to this discussion, I knew more about than you.
>
>
>> If you like to have an example from my life I do not think that you can explain for example various "levels/types of telepathy" based on todays knowledge.
>
>Do you want human knowledge to progress? We frequently progress by seeing demonstrations of things we can't explain.
>
>Scientists love it when they have new things to investigate. That's how you win prizes and fame and fortune.
>
>
>> It is highly likely that you can not prove the existence of this
>
>If you can actually describe what you can do, then you can test for it. You probably don't need any fancy gear. I've read through many test protocols for testing psychics and they were often very simple.
>
>Let me say that again: if you can clearly describe what you can do, then odds are that a simple test can be devised. I have personally witnessed tests of paranormal phenomena. It's much simpler than you think.
>
>(usually the hardest part is getting the person to actually describe what they can do. "I'm psychic" is not very specific.)
>
>
>> phenomena and how it works, at least not based on what we know today or for example fifty years ago.
>
>The way we will explain it is by seeing and testing.
>
>
>> If however the person doesn't want to believe on the telepathy on the first place, or doesn't have skill or determination why should you bother to convince the other person that telepathy exists and function
>
>James Randi will give you $1m if you can demonstrate it without resorting to trickery. He's got the money in negotiable bonds. You will be world famous.
>
>"doesn't want to believe" is very pejorative language. You have been doing that a lot: people who disagree with you must have done so because they don't understand or didn't want to believe from the start or some similar reason. It is never the case that somebody has looked at the evidence with an open mind and decided that you are wrong.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20111228/06b3ac90/attachment-0002.html>