Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Young people are flocking to astrology

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

951–960 of 972 posts

Re: Young people are flocking to astrology

#951

Post by rcme »

vacuity wrote: post #950
rcme wrote: post #943

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we're to be exact, we can't prove that if I throw an object upwards with 5 N of force right now, the gravitational field won't suddenly shift (for some reason) and send it out of the atmosphere. Ok then let’s rephrase the statement to “Absent any sudden shifts in the gravitational field, 5 N of force is not enough to bring a 1 kg sphere to escape velocity.” Science can prove that. And if we can’t prove something…

Ah, but you're overreaching. I agreed with you in the comment you replied to. However, your point about rationality isn't so clear cut in the case of religion. If a religious person tells me that the theory of evolution is just flat out wrong then yeah, I'm going to dismiss that as irrational. If a religious person tells me that people reincarnate or get sent to the afterlife based on their deeds, I personally won't…

> That's not a matter of rationality anymore; it's faith. There's no evidence either way.

If there is no evidence either way, then it is only rational to reject any positive assertion. The reason is that negative assertions are infinitely more likely to be correct than positive assertions. As a motivating example, think of a number between 1 and 1,000. Now, which statement seems more likely to be true: “the number you thought of is 32” or “the number you thought of is not 32.” I have evidence of the number you thought of, but the negative assertion is much more likely.

Another way of thinking about it is this: each positive fact yields are near infinite number of negative facts. E.g. if you know a ball is green then you also know it’s not red and it’s not blue, etc. the converse isn’t true. When you know a negative fact, you learn very little. E.g. what else can you say after learning a ball is not blue.

Re: Young people are flocking to astrology

#952

Post by vacuity »

rcme wrote: post #951
vacuity wrote: post #950

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, but you're overreaching. I agreed with you in the comment you replied to. However, your point about rationality isn't so clear cut in the case of religion. If a religious person tells me that the theory of evolution is just flat out wrong then yeah, I'm going to dismiss that as irrational. If a religious person tells me that people reincarnate or get sent to the afterlife based on their deeds, I personally won't…

> That's not a matter of rationality anymore; it's faith. There's no evidence either way. If there is no evidence either way, then it is only rational to reject any positive assertion. The reason is that negative assertions are infinitely more likely to be correct than positive assertions. As a motivating example, think of a number between 1 and 1,000. Now, which statement seems more likely to be true: “the number yo…

There is no rational distinction between positive and negative assertions in the general case. A positive assertion to a statement is equivalent to a negative assertion for the inverse of the statement. Numbers don't count (ha) because we know facts such as "the set of integers is infinitely large". Your ball color example is just nonsense. You used green but then switched to blue for the negative assertion. Also, that's not how colors work. In the case of religion, you're going off your preconceptions and biases. A religious person could easily say the opposite. You would both be speaking nonsense by saying your bias is more rational.

Re: Young people are flocking to astrology

#953

Post by ChainOfFools »

bowsamic wrote: post #393
anon-3988 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Without significant training on the path there is no way for you to tell what is bs and what is the true deep stuff. I don’t really get this pattern of random westerners coming into Buddhism and thinking they immediately know exactly which things the Buddha made up and which he didn’t Why not? I just read it like any other book. When the Bhagavad Ghita says that there's nothing before and after my existence, that i…

Because the book literally says that you don’t have the training or insight to decide what is true or false in it. An explicitly laid out aspect of Buddhism is that you can’t tell yet. Sure you can ignore that part if you want to feel like you know what’s right, but the Buddha already saw people do this to much failure and gave teachings to try and prevent it

this makes buddhism sound like the mod of an edgy IRC channel: "lurk moar"

Re: Young people are flocking to astrology

#954

Post by wilg »

reportgunner wrote: post #932
wilg wrote: post #908

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is okay to try to be correct – or at least not demonstrably wrong – about the nature of the universe. Some people think its inappropriate to question other peoples' "beliefs", I do not. The beliefs in question are harmful, so yes, I get frustrated when people talk in circles and don't take responsibility for the things they say. Notably, you have avoided talking about the "value of those beliefs" in favor…

I think you should focus your energy somewhere else.

What purpose does your comment serve?

Re: Young people are flocking to astrology

#955

Post by wilg »

whakim wrote: post #914
wilg wrote: post #911

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A more complex definition of "racism" is unhelpful here. I'm not arguing there aren't additional aspects worthy of discussion. But "racial prejudice" is a perfectly acceptable way to use it, and it is also the dictionary definition. This isn't a teachable moment to explore the nuances of racism, it's simply a metaphor. I think stereotypes are a kind of prejudice, again, using plain definitions. A stereotype is an ove…

> "racial prejudice" is a perfectly acceptable way to use it Racial prejudice. Which adds a boatload of social and historical context to "prejudice" alone. Not to mention that no one talks about racial prejudice without (at least) an awareness of the discrimination and oppression that such prejudice often gives rise to. > This isn't a teachable moment to explore the nuances of racism, it's simply a metaphor. "Tell[in…

Of course mentioning race in the context of prejudice adds context, that's why it's a more interesting analogy. That context might allow you to more intuitively consider the ramifications of what happens when prejudice goes unchecked.

Saying something is akin to something else IS a metaphor. Analogy, simile, whatever. It's a kind of metaphor. You've again described an analogy as an equivalence, which it just isn't. If it's not an equivalence, it can't be a false equivalence. I think we can handle analogies.

Also, as far as I can tell without a paywall (!?), neither definition you linked to mentions beliefs or feelings so I'm not sure how you're getting that. I don't disagree that stereotypes can cause prejudice, I just don't follow the distinction you're trying to draw between beliefs and feelings or how it makes a difference here.

The problem OP was trying to highlight is people making unjustified assumptions about people based on their pre-conceived notions (which are also indefensibly unmoored from reality).

Re: Young people are flocking to astrology

#956

Post by jemmyw »

za3faran wrote: post #860
jemmyw wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it matter all that much that they get some nuances to Islam, or other religions, incorrect when the central tenant is that there is no God / spiritual being? Like arguing over the cake decorations instead of tackling the central issue of the sponge being made of chocolate or turds.

It's not just nuances, it's entire straw man fallacies. They don't understand basic Islamic tenants and claims, let alone advanced topics like Kalam, and then they attempt to argue against it, making a mockery out of themselves. Details do matter, because they lump all religions together and attempt to argue against them as a whole, not realizing that there exist core differences among them, even if there is potentia…

While I agree that it's bad to spread misinformation that may be harmful, I'll again appeal to you that it doesn't matter a great deal to the audience of this particular book. If the argument is that the fundamental underpinning of all these religions is untrue, unreasonable, or directionally opposite to modern science then the details are not important.

To put it another way, if you read the book and you are religious then it probably matters to you in a way that other's just don't give a damn about. For example, I remember at uni some Christians in my class debating the holy spirit / God / Jesus and the distinction or lack thereof. But if you're not Christian then it doesn't matter, that detail has no bearing on you at all. In the same way that if you are Christian then a book discussing whether Jesus was a mythical figure and retelling of an older story or a real person, that detail is just outside your belief system, it doesn't have any bearing on you and there's no point engaging with that detail.

Re: Young people are flocking to astrology

#957

Post by executesorder66 »

nmilo wrote: post #927
executesorder66 wrote: post #920

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Slavery wasn't abolished by changing people's minds via rational debate. I didn't say it had to be done via rational debate. > They only changed their beliefs after decades under new laws and culture. So they did do it after all. > The research is out on changing people's beliefs, for most it usually causes them to dig their heels in and hate the other side even more. If you encounter a racist person or a Nazi in r…

> Look at you trying to change my beliefs via rational debate. What a hypocrite. LOL this is only proving my point. You're digging your heels and getting angrier without changing. You're right, I'm wasting my time.

My point is that you can, and should, try to change people's minds about stupid beliefs. And I gave examples of that.

Your point is that it is impossible to change peoples minds.

If that is what you believe then why were you trying to change someone's mind?

If I accept your belief, then that goes back to my earlier question: why should anyone have bothered to change peoples minds about slavery or racism? Why not leave it as it was?

Re: Young people are flocking to astrology

#958

Post by bowsamic »

ChainOfFools wrote: post #953
bowsamic wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the book literally says that you don’t have the training or insight to decide what is true or false in it. An explicitly laid out aspect of Buddhism is that you can’t tell yet. Sure you can ignore that part if you want to feel like you know what’s right, but the Buddha already saw people do this to much failure and gave teachings to try and prevent it

this makes buddhism sound like the mod of an edgy IRC channel: "lurk moar"

Well, it is! It’s a training. It’s like someone coming in to lifting weights and saying “squats are useless and no one should do them”. Without training you might not know that’s wrong. Buddhism is just like this

Re: Young people are flocking to astrology

#959

Post by wink »

Brendinooo wrote: post #813
evandale wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is checking your horoscope considered believing in astrology? I ask because I check mine, but mostly for morning reminders and put my head on straight. Today mine starts with "The universe may deliver an ego bruise or two today, dear Virgo, as brooding Pluto squares off with the Nodes of Fate" and while I don't believe they're predicting a specific event it's nice to have that in the back of my mind today. Coincident…

> Is checking your horoscope considered believing in astrology? I don't think this is something that I can answer, but at the very least it says that you're neutral enough toward it to allow it to speak into your life.

If I read it, then I usually read all 12 of them and try to decide how many of them fit better than my own one. Not sure that counts as believing, more being easily amused.

Re: Young people are flocking to astrology

#960

Post by wink »

JackMorgan wrote: post #452

Belief in astrology looks a lot like the personifying animals or anthropomorphizing of inert items. Maybe the toaster hates you, or maybe it's just faulty and confirmation bias is strong. Belief in astrology puts words to the chaos and randomness of life. There's something very human about how we try to add life and agency to everything: mother earth, ghosts, forests, grumpy co-workers, broken toasters, and the actio…

What if /every/ printer hates you, though? No, don't answer that.
Post reply on HN