[CleaP]
>With the multiplicity of methods for calculating the technojargon
>'houses' [I think at least 12 are extant], I think scientific testing
>[even limited to their framework] would be useful. If I were to
>believe, my bet would be on the only one that doesn't shatter at the
>Arctic/Antartic circles....
>
>Computing a horoscope from a date of birth, without any other data, is
>NAIVE. That's like predicting air time for a basketball to 10
>significant digits, and having only only 1 significant digit in the
>initial velocity.
Well yeh, but... astrology could be only 1 sig fig accurate (eg) and still
confer a benefit on people... meaning that if someone's horoscope is
/ballpark/ accurate then it might not let you predict their behaviour more
than 1% of the time, but that's still better than chance.
What?! I'm DEFENDING the validity of astrology? I've got to get this
argumentative shit under control!
Dave Pape
============================================================================
Ran out of sig. ideas.
Phonecalls: 01494 461648 Phights: 10 Riverswood Gardens
High Wycombe
HP11 1HN