Cote your post at 12:44 was extremely rude and personally offensive. Let's have a look at what you said shall we:
^?people have borrowed this book and everyone single one was surprised by the accuracy?
Because of selective perception and our talent for pattern recognition. In other words, people recognize the bits that seem relevant and disregard the rest, especially if they want to believe, like anyone who would read a book on their children?s star signs in the first place.^
Quite - which is why I said after that little anecdote that no-one took it particularly seriously and it was just a bit of fun. I also said in my first line that I didn't think that the alignment of the planets actually impacted on our day to day lives.
There is no such thing as a ?metaphysical world?
I'm sorry, but you call me an idiot? You do realise that metaphysics is a legitimate branch of philosophy right? That it deals with ideas of being, free will and determinism amongst many many others and that there is a huge crossover between physics and metaphysics, particularly in relation to the Einstein's theory of relativity (and in particular Relativity of simultaneity).
Einstein himself had some very well thought out views on the subject concluding in his 1944 work "Ideas and Opinions" that "It finally turns out that one can, after all, not get along without metaphysics."
But then again, perhaps you thought I meant metaphysics in the way it is used to mean spiritual? Understandable I suppose if you haven't read Kant. Incidently, the popular use of metaphysical to mean spiritual comes from an interpretation error by Latin scholars of the titles given to Aristotles books on First Philosophy by his publisher.
^?We know that the moon physically impacts on both the planet (tides) ... due to magnetic forces and light etc?
Tides are due to moon?s gravity, you dingbat. Moon doesn?t have a rotating metal inner core like the earth so no significant magnetic field of its own. What little magnetic properties it has are due to its passing through the earth?s magnetic field.^
So I used the wrong word because I was dredging knowledge up from school science - I know that the moon affects the tides - I don't really care whether it is magnetic or gravitational.
^There is no such ?fact?, except the gravitational pull that all objects exert on each other depending on their mass and distance. This pull does not determine character traits of babies at the moment of their birth and it is categorically numptastic to believe that it does."
Never said it did. I said we cannot know whether it has any other kind of influence - I've re-checked my post and I certainly didn't state any specific kinds of influence.
Are you aware that Isaac Newton wrote more about the Occult in his lifetime than he did about physics and when he was alive this was primarily what he was known for in his early career. When he first postulated about an invisible force that could act over vast distances he was accused of introducing the occult into science. Understandable really - an invisible force that exerts influence over vast distances?
Imagine if gravity had not been explained yet and someone posted on here that they believed in an invisible force that all object have an exert on each other - you'd probably be rude to them too!
Scientists accept that there is a lot we don't know or understand about the universe (so gawd knows why it is so wrong for me to suggest it) - it is why they have built the LHC. When Fritz Zwicky first proposed the existence of Dark Matter in the 1930's his peers thought he was a bit mad - turns out he was correct - although its existence was not proven until 2009. However he also theorized that there were nuclear goblins, that planets could be swapped around in the solar system and that the solar system could be used as a giant space ship (so perhaps he was a bit mad - he was still brilliant).
You know that acupuncture is proven to be no better than placebo and you think that is a good thing? Woman, is there no limit to your ignorance? This means it has no effect except in the mind of its believers. You might as well pray for the pain to go away.
You missed a bit when you quoted me - I said it was proven to help nausea and some kinds of pain but was thought to be a placebo for other ailments. Acupuncture (and accupressure) has been found to be particularly effective in combating vommiting and nausea in conjunction with anti-sickness meds after chemotherapy - the two in combination seem to be more effective than anti-sickness meds alone. It is accepted that more study is needed of course, but the simple fact is that at the moment there is enough evidence of its validity for both Cancer Research UK and the American Cancer Society to highlight it as a possible complimentary treatment for someone undergoing cancer treatment.
As far as other ailments go - even if it is only a placebo affect - if it helps people does it matter?
Anecdotal only, but my DH had a really nasty whiplash injury that was never treated. His neck was incredibly painful and clicked loudly whenever he turned it from side to side. The doctor tried everything - physio, laser treatment - he was even tested for Rheumatoid Arthritis because none of the treatments seemed to be working. The amount of pain killers he was taking scared me, so as a last resort I dragged him to a Chinese herbalist. One course of Acupuncture and he has been pain free ever since.
DH's dad had a massively painful back for 30 years after breaking it in a car accident. He coped with it all that time, only having periodic bouts of not being able to walk. He went through a particularly bad bout where he couldn't walk more than 10 meters without near collapsing. His doctor sent him for NHS acupuncture (which was just being trialled at the time). Afterwards, although not completely pain free, he could walk without problem and said he was in less pain than he had been for the past 30 years.
Maybe both were placebo affects, maybe not, but given the positive impact it had on everyone's life I don't really care how it worked - I just care that it did.
^?Knowledge is cyclical?
That has to be one of the top five most ridiculous statements ever on MN, and that is against some competition. Like, all we learned about the world and the universe in the past 100 years was already known? Because, what, some stargazer shaman told you so?^
Really - ridiculous is it. Look up the antikythera mechanism and explain to me how someone built what was essentially an astronomical clock 1000 years before that knowledge is thought to have been discovered.
There is also evidence in archeology - the ancient Babylonians, Greeks and Romans had immense knowledge - there is evidence that they had a real understanding of the planets and the solar system (stone henge, the pyramids) and yet between the decline of their civilisations and the Renaissance we believed the world was flat and that the sun moved around us. Massive amounts of their knowledge was lost. Some has since been re-discovered but there is no way of knowing whether we are discovering things for the first time or whether they knew it first and that knowledge was lost. It is pretty arrogant, given their brilliance, to assume that we are discovering everything for the first time.
Knowledge moves and changes, ideas come, go and come back again. Ideas that are thought to be scientific truth are dismissed then picked up again as science moves on. This can be seen everyday at the micro level - how often does the advice on what to do with babies change and then change back again - weaning for example. Why is it such a leap to also think that can happen on a much wider scale, over centuries or millenia?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with only believing in what science can prove if that's what you want to do - but there is absolutely no need to disparage other people for believing differently. It is imagination and belief in the impossible that leads to new scientific discoveries in the first place and debate is useful and helpful. Rudeness is not.