Numerlogy, anyone?

[Dave Horne]

If you want to believe that there is a six foot invisible rabbit named Harvey talking to you, that is your perogative.

 

If you wish others to sign onto your belief system, you might win more converts if you have proof that he actually exists. The burden of proof is with the individual claiming that something exists.

 

It doesn't get any simpler.

[Dave Horne]

I'll bet you know nothing at all about numerology, or astrology or any of the other things you so readily dismiss.

I gave a lesson to a woman who 'dabbled' in astrology. She asked me what my sign was. I gave my usual answer - guess. The odds are 12 to 1 she might actually guess my 'sign'. She guessed incorrectly. I asked her to guess again, she again answered incorrectly. I would suppose if there were something to astrology, for example, it would be easy to give a hundred people a form to fill out and then have someone else 'guess' the 'sign' of the people who filled out the form. I think that would be the way to go ... what do you think? Provided the people filling out the forms were not asked their date of birth, I would be willing to bet any amount of money that the correct 'guesses' would be in the neighborhood of 8 to 9 percent.

 

James Randi's site is online 24 hours a day. Why not follow up and try and collect the money. If there's something to this number stuff ... or astrology ... or spoon bending ... or levitation ... or ESP .... or mind reading, it should be easy to devise a test where someone's skills can actually be measured .... or not? Randi still has the $1,000,000 .... go figure.

 

Wait a minute - there were 357 characters in this message ... just kidding.

[Dak Lander]

Originally posted by Dave Horne:

If you wish others to sign onto your belief system, you might win more converts if you have proof that he actually exists. The burden of proof is with the individual claiming that something exists.

Ah, but the crux of the matter is not the necessity to prove your beliefs to anyone though it seems the non-believers always want proof. Very likely due to their inability to fathom that which may be.

All the noted scholars, scientists, explorers and others, in our past had beliefs that were not in line with many, or most, of the general population at the time, or even experts in their respective fields.

Just to name a very few;

Gallileo

Newton

Columbus

Einstein

Currie

 

For you to completely disparage the beliefs of others without proof is as utterly ridiculous, in my estimation, as those who would disparage your non-belief without proof.

No one is saying you must believe in Numerology or anything else but not giving the benefit of the doubt is much like those who thought the Earth was the center of the universe and that it was flat.

 

There is much in this universe that cannot really be understood by mere mortals. That doesn't mean that those things don't occur.

 

An excersize for you. Using the rules of Epistemology only, prove your existence.

 

Very often faith alone is the true cause of a belief and that cannot be questioned.

[Jotown]

Originally posted by daklander:

Originally posted by Dave Horne:

If you wish others to sign onto your belief system, you might win more converts if you have proof that he actually exists. The burden of proof is with the individual claiming that something exists.

All the noted scholars, scientists, explorers and others, in our past had beliefs that were not in line with many, or most, of the general population at the time, or even experts in their respective fields.

Just to name a very few;

Gallileo

Newton

Columbus

Einstein

Currie

 

For you to completely disparage the beliefs of others without proof is as utterly ridiculous, in my estimation, as those who would disparage your non-belief without proof.

No one is saying you must believe in Numerology or anything else but not giving the benefit of the doubt is much like those who thought the Earth was the center of the universe and that it was flat.

Good post Dak,

 

Dave, You have missed the point. It is great to not believe in something, but when you don't know anything about a subject, and then decide that the subject is crap, just because you don't believe it, without any evidence, the burden of proving your disbelief is on you.

 

In your astrology story you proved that you still know nothing about astrology, and that you won an argument with someone else who knew nothing of the subject.

 

You have proven that you know nothing of these matters, yet you still feel that your uninformed opinion has some validity. I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, just keep you honest.

[Dave Horne]

All the noted scholars, scientists, explorers and others, in our past had beliefs that were not in line with many, or most, of the general population at the time, or even experts in their respective fields.

Just to name a very few;

Gallileo

Newton

Columbus

Einstein

Currie

The names you mentioned dealt in theories, not beliefs. By mentioning those names in the same paragraph as numerology, you diminish their contribution to science (or raise numerology to new heights). There is a considerable distinction between a theory and a belief. A belief does not need to be proved to the believer; a theory, on the other hand, exists until something better disproves it.

 

There is much in this universe that cannot really be understood by mere mortals. That doesn't mean that those things don't occur.

That's a nice thought but it really doesn't say much. The burden of proof lies with the advocate, not with the skeptic, he repeats.

 

You and everyone in your state can believe in numerology if you wish, but when it is taught in the school system, I will ask for proof if that's OK with you. (I do not want our foreign policy decided by someone who believes in numerology, but in this instance, it could be an improvement.)

 

I have noticed that acoustic pianos stay longer in tune if there is a pyramid placed on top of the lid ... just kidding.

[I I mjrn]

Why do some make the presumption that to disbelieve something (& note, that doesn't necessarily mean you think it false, merely that you don't invest it with belief!) that one knows nothing of it?

I've been a student of many esoteric areas all my life; one thing I know for certain is that it's foolish to believe in that of which one has no evidence.

Numerology (or anything else) might have validity---but by which system or method?

There are a number of methods of any of these systems & their interpretations; how should one determine the "right" one?

 

The truth is that numbers are nothing more than symbols used in a variety of ways by people. What they represent varies by culture & by differenet uses in those cultures.

Attaching meaning to them is something that we do as humans & any review of our history shows how inaccurate our beliefs may or may not be & how often they are changed.

There are multible methods of counting & even of attaching meaning to numbers; some add up & some don't.

One should keep an open mind...but not so open that one catches cold in your brain.

BTW, as I mentioned earlier Pythagoras's methods with numbers were faulty both in determining musical scales & in his symbolism used in his cult. You did know that he was a cult leader, given to all sorts of oddities like claiming he could raise the dead didn't you, Jotown?

One of the main rules he imposed on his followers was penalty of death if they exposed that his calculations were not absolutely accurate.*

 

The most operative word in this thread is belief, i.e., the trust in something one doesn't understand or know as a certainty.

That's generally an invitation to uncertain results.

[i pause here to invoke the spirit of Stevie Wonder...I [i]believe[/i] you'll know what song lyric to quote to yourself---was my belief justified? ]

 

At any rate, it's all what one chooses to believe but to presume that someone who doesn't share that belief is unknowledgeable is hubris of the first order.

 

[* Refer to the book Temperament by Stuart Isacoff for more details about Pythagoras & the varieties of symbolism attached to numbers just in terms of music.]

[Dak Lander]

Ah Mr. Horne, had there not been belief in their ideas, there would have been no theories, using your definition, as I understand it.

 

In actuality, they are related with theories leaning more to the scientific.

 

From Merrian-Webster's Thesaurus...

 

Entry Word: theory

Function: noun

Text: 1 a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action

Synonyms hypothesis, supposal; compare ASSUMPTION 2

Related Word base, basis, grounds, position, premise, understanding

Antonyms practice

2 something taken for granted especially on trivial or inadequate grounds

Synonyms conjecture, perhaps, speculation, suppose, supposition

Related Word guess, guesswork, surmise; feeling, hunch, impression, presentiment, suspicion

Contrasted Words assurance, certainty, knowledge

(I emboldened "belief", not MerriampWebster.)

 

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary

Main Entry: the·o·ry

Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural -ries

Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION

3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art

4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory

5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

synonym see HYPOTHESIS

(Again, I emboldened "belief".)

 

So, you see, you're trying to play with semantics and it's getting you nowhere in this discussion.

 

I am, personally, not a believer in numerology or astrology, nor am I a believer in many other ideologies but, I do believe one thing. Other folks can believe what ever they want and I will respect that as long as they show me the same consideration and don't try to foist their beliefs on me.

[Jotown]

At any rate, it's all what one chooses to believe but to presume that someone who doesn't share that belief is unknowledgeable is hubris of the first order.

I don't think that anyone here has made that presumption. But in your own way you have reinforced my point by inverting it.

 

I didn't say that I believed in numerology, or any -ology, and I didn't say that if you don't believe it you are uninformed.

 

What I did say, and so has Dak, is that if you dismiss something you know nothing about your opinion is meaningless because it is uninformed.

 

And I think that would be hubris of the second order. So I trump your first order hubris with some second order hubris.

 

And yes I am very aware of the history of Pythagoras, but even with some of the flawed logic of his time he was a brilliant thinker. I can appreciate his contributions to music and science without having to join his cult, or agree with everything he believed.

 

Now, if I knew nothing of Pythagoras and I said that I don't like him and he was an idiot, I would be making a meaningless uninformed statement.

 

Also, Einstein believed in astrology, so what disparaging remarks do you have about him?

[Dave Horne]

So, you see, you're trying to play with semantics and it's getting you nowhere in this discussion.

As you quoted, there are differences between a belief and a theory. A belief does not come under the same scrutiny as a theory (especially a scientific theory). The bar is set considerably lower for beliefs than for theories. Can we both agree to that ... or will you be quoting more definitions?

 

I would agree that I am getting nowhere ... with you in this ... discussion.

 

Now, if we could only get those individuals who believe in numerology to come up with a theory, we could put that theory to a test. As long as it's a belief, it really has no weight. Since numerology has been with us for such a long time, it is surprising that a theory has not been formulated.

 

I believe I am going to have a glass of wine.

[I I mjrn]

Re-reading Phait's initial post, I notice this has to do with the recurring observance of this number...we should be aware that when we begin to look for something we see it more frequently.

[Dave Horne]

Incidentally, Einstein did not believe in astrology ... that is an urban myth.

 

urban myth #42

 

Also, there are not stupid people, just stupid beliefs.

[Jotown]

Originally posted by Dave Horne:

Incidentally, Einstein did not believe in astrology ... that is an urban myth.

 

urban myth #42

 

Also, there are not stupid people, just stupid beliefs.

There you go again Dave. I am just curious, Do you have any original thoughts, or is everything you know lifted from some skeptics website?

 

The Quote attributed to Albert Einstein:

Astrology is a science in itself and contains an illuminating body of knowledge. It taught me many things and I am greatly indebted to it.

Is not disproved on your skeptics website either. The skeptic clearly states that he cannot find any evidence either way, and his is an opinion of a person who is famous for his disbelief in astrology. You should read the whole thing before you quote it.

 

This quote has been in print, and attributed to Mr. Einstein since before his death. It would seem that the burden of proof here is on the skeptic.

 

If you actually read any of Einstein's own writings you would know that he had a very mystical spiritual and metaphysical view of many things.

 

He is quoted as saying that: "I came across my Special Theory of Relativity" by imagining what it would be like to ride on a light beam". He had an incredible imagination, and a willingness to suspend his disbelief as a way of uncovering truth.

 

I am wondering if there is anything that you actually do believe in? Besides skepticism that is.

[Dak Lander]

Originally posted by Dave Horne:

As you quoted, there are differences between a belief and a theory.Yes, there are differences but the basic tenet is the same. A belief does not come under the same scrutiny as a theory (especially a scientific theory). That would depend on where your interest lies, and as I stated above, theory normally leans toward the scientific. The bar is set considerably lower for beliefs than for theories. There is no proof that the bar is set lower for belief than theory. That is your opinion and I can accept that opinion without the proof, primarily because it really doesn't rate too highly on my list of things to be concerned about. Can we both agree to that ... or will you be quoting more definitions? Yes, as stipulated above, to a point. I may also quote more definitions but be aware that I will only quote something like that to back up what I already know, not what I surmise.

 

I would agree that I am getting nowhere ... with you in this ... discussion.

 

I believe I am going to have a glass of wine. In theory, I believe I'll have a tot of Rum.

CHEERS!

[deanmass]

Hmmm

 

I always thought my favorite number was 69...( I was SURE someone else would have claimed this one by now...

 

The movie Pi:Faith in Chaos is very interesting. Someone alluded to Hebrew being based in numerical values earlier on, and I think the current usages hold true. From memory, father in hebrew means '1', mother means '2', and family means 3. The other numerical values structures are similar, but not being able to read or speak hebrew, I am taking alot of this on...faith.

[boosh]

Originally posted by deanmass:

[QB]Hmmm

 

I always thought my favorite number was 69...( I was SURE someone else would have claimed this one by now...

 

QB]

I love 69 at 4:20

[Phait]

Hmm.. some insightful posts and some civil arguments here (let's keep em that way ). Didn't expect it to get this far.

 

I can't say that I have any strong or mild belief in some of these things, but I am open to the possibility of them, thus why I asked if anyone was familiar.

 

I can agree with the point about, when we look for things, we often see them when we want to. But the number 357 right now has no direct signifiance to me that I can figure out other than I see it moderately... I cannot think of what would cause me to want to see this.

[Chip Curtis]

3,5,7...11,13,17...Dude, maybe you've got primes disease!

[Phait]

[Dave Horne]

Regarding Einstein and astrology - please provide a link to his writings where he makes any positive statement regarding astrology.

 

I do know that he was an atheist, so it is rather doubtful he would believe in anything that was not provable.

[I I mjrn]

Phait, it's not that you want to see the number but that once you perceive it as recurring you tend to notice any indication of it more frequently & also to keep track of those instances more than all the other numbers you see, giving it a disproportionate significance, even, in most likelihood, thinking that it occurs at a greater frequency than other numbers when it may not.

See what I mean?

This is something that occurs automatically in regard to any subject that catches our interest & is no reflection on anyone's intellect.

Any subject we have a strong interest in at any time will be perceived this way; if I'm studying MIDI, for example, my brain will notice that word on a page when I'm not even really reading it directly.

 

I'm not trying to convince you that there's nothing to numerology (I don't think so but that's just because I've never found it to be the case) but I'm pointing out that it's very easy for us to fool ourselves unless we consider how our minds work, especially on the subconscious level, & that we should carefully evaluate what we encounter rather than give credence to what seems to be.

 

The same way you should be skeptical of a strongarm salesman or a blowhard polititian, Buddha says to be careful of what you are told but do not encounter yourself & (if you prefer) Jesus says to beware of false prophets.

 

Mind your wants...because there's someone who wants your mind!--George Clinton.

[Phait]

This is something that occurs automatically in regard to any subject that catches our interest & is no reflection on anyone's intellect.

I agree.. I tend to catch "New Zealand" in print or on TV, etc too. Not that I think that has any meaning ... (though I'd like to visit, potentially move there)

 

Good points, uh, "Nose"

[Jotown]

Originally posted by Dave Horne:

Regarding Einstein and astrology - please provide a link to his writings where he makes any positive statement regarding astrology.

 

I do know that he was an atheist, so it is rather doubtful he would believe in anything that was not provable.

Dave do google search, there are dozens of sites that display that quote.

 

But the bigger point is: That quote has appeared in print for over 50 years in dozens of books, and it appeared in print during the mans lifetime. Before the internet, being factualy accurate on the printed page was very important. Reprints are very expensive, and there was a much higher ethical standard than we have here on the net. Any printed book that was published before Einstein died is a much more solid piece of evidence than a skeptics website that is only featuring his opinion.

 

As far as Einstein being an atheist, that meant that he did not believe in religion, nor in a personal God. There are dozens of quotes where Einstein speaks of his belief in God, And there dozens of atheist websites that claim he was mis-quoted.

 

The most famous being that "that everything I have done, I have done in an effort to know the mind of God".

 

There is a great book written by Einstein called "In My Later Years". You should read it. You just might learn something.

[Dave Horne]

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.

 

Albert Einstein

[Dave Horne]

Jotown, if you google ... einstein astrology quote, the first hit is google ... first hit

 

You can read there as well as many other places where believers in astrology have used a quote by AE that does not exist. There is quite a history involved re that.

 

I have read the wiki encyclopedia entry for AE and there is no mention of astrology. There is a paragraph re his religious views however.

 

I still think giving a hundred people a form to fill out, asking personal questions (though not a birth date, of course) and having an 'expert' divine the 'sign' of the person behind the forms would be most enlightening. I'd bet my money on an 8.3 percent of correct guesses, plus or minus a few percent to be safe. I bet if Albert were alive he'd be in agreement with James Randi ... and an 8.3 percent correct rate. So, Jotown, what do you think of my easy test to prove astrology true or not. We don't have to use quotes whether real or not, we could conduct this test time and time again and see what the results would be. First we would have to pick an expert and then have that expert devise a long list of questions. It really seems like a foolproof test, don't you agree? We could put to rest once and for all if there is anything to astrology.

 

I saw James Randi give a classroom of students a detailed astrological reading, created just for them and printed on paper. They were asked how accurate it was and they pretty much all agreed that there was something to it. He then asked them to give the person behind them the same piece of paper. It seems they all had the same exact 'reading'. Interesting ... and amusing.

 

additional info re this \'quote\'

 

You ever notice how raw meat can stay fresher longer if you place a refrigerated pyramid over it?

[I I mjrn]

Should I feel ignored or justified that no one has attacked the points I make?

[Salyphus]

At this time I would like to refer everyone back to my initial post in this thread.

 

Thank you.

[Jotown]

Originally posted by Dave Horne:

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.

 

Albert Einstein

Interesting, but you left out the first half of the quote, which goes against your theory. Did you do that on purpose, or were you unaware of its importance?

 

 

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery--even if mixed with fear-that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms- it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

He also said:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

--Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium (1941) ch. 13

And also:

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no Church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with the highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as Atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

 

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important funcition of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are capable of it.

Einstein was clearly a very spiritual man. Until I meet him in the next life I will not know what his true view on astrology, or numerology is. However, I do know that he was a man in search of truth wherever he found it.

 

Phait's question was sincere, and it represented his own search for his truth. I do not judge it simply because I do not understand it. To do so is not helpful, and in fact is mean and with all due respect; bigoted.

 

I will leave you with one more Einstein quote to ponder, since you seem so fond of his work.

 

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods."

Again Phait, good luck on your search for meaning in this crazy world.

[Dave Horne]

Jotown,

Until I meet him in the next life I will not know what his true view on astrology, or numerology is.

Do you actually read what you copy and paste? It is quite clear that Einstein does not believe in an afterlife - you copied this quote in your previous post.

Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. AE

It would be exceedingly difficult for you to converse with ... anyone at that point. Dead is dead. I realize there's a lot of marketing in California contrary to that fact, but dead is dead nonetheless.

 

Now you will excuse me, there's a invisible six foot rabbit named Harvey who desperately wants my attention.

[Jotown]

I never said that Einstein believed in an afterlife. I said that I did.

 

My point, which you conveniently ignore, is that Einstein was a deeply spriritual being who was in wonder and awe at the Universe he beheld, and that he considered himself a "Deeply religious man" in the "Cosmic Sense".

 

When you cut and paste half of a quote, (out of context with the rest of the paragraph) and then get busted, you should at least read and acknowledge that you were uninformed, and that just maybe you were mis-quoting someone to try to bolster your position. I won't hold my breath...

 

This is starting to sound like a debate on WMD's.

[Jimbroni]

Einstein was once quoted as saying I want to know the mind of GOD. Hardly something an atheist would say.

 

http://members.rogers.com/mcaputo4163/einstein.htm

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/einstein.htm