LiveScience Skeptics, Psychics, Jaycee Dugard

Yahoo article saying that psychics have never helped solve a crime like the abduction of Jaycee Dugard. In the article they actually quote a psychic who says that she told Jaycee's mother that she would see her daughter again. That's kind of weird reporting, isn't it? I mean, that was correct information. The Mother is seeing her daughter again after 18 years. I can't really criticize anyone else's lack of logic myself, but is this linear thinking, logic and all? (I've actually seen the psychic mentioned on stage and thought she was a phoney on stage, she was trying to do the fast talking psychic thing like John Edwards and James Praagh but can't talk fast enough).

Then the article then goes on, and I'm not kidding, says that the media messes things up by giving the psychics a voice. It says this after reporting that the psychic had given the mother correct information. And, then, the article goes even further into its own ka-ka by not reporting on how many detectives trust their "hunches" and "gut instincts" on solving crimes (Pluto). Columbus, after all, wouldn't have set sail to America if he hadn't had a hunch (and a good sales pitch). Too bad he didn't have a hunch about not spreading the clap.

After all, it was the two police persons (both women, I saw them on CNN) who felt that something was wrong with Abductor Garrido's situation and told the parole officer to look into it. Anderson Cooper asked the one police person how she "knew." She said it was partly "a mother's instinct."

So, there you go, Yahoo/LiveScience Know-It-Alls. Why don't you try reporting the bigger picture than your own belief system? We're finding out that all the goodies of the Enlightenment have created Global Warming so I think we need to learn to take a long view of things these days as well.

I'm not saying that most psychics (and astrologers) aren't big ego'd marketing freaks (they want to be able to buy medical insurance just like everyone else), but somewhere in here the smug scientists are going to be figuring out how all this works and you might as well report on that, because that raises our awareness to new levels. Confronting the things that man doesn't understand is how man has advanced so far, why insist that everyone stay in the cave grabbing at shadow figures?

And the article also says that these crimes are always solved either by the police or by accident. So, thank you police (Virgo, Pluto, Mars) and accidents (Uranus, Mars), for solving crime. Interesting how when you add the sign of Virgo to the planets that rule crimes, you come up with the factors needed to solve crime.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090831/sc_livescience/jayceedugardabductioncasehighlightsfailureofpsychics

A Skeptic Who I Kinda Like

The Skeptics are usually kind of annoying because they blather on about Sun Signs and don't bother to learn anything about Astrology, but the article linked to below is actually very interesting. It was written in 1978 by Paul R. Thagard. "Why Astrology Is A Pseudoscience."

www.cavehill.uwi.edu/bnccde/ph29a/thagard.html

Thagard discounts the arguments that Astrology is "Magical" and therefore Scientific because he explains that Chemistry and Medicine started out that way as well. He says that another Skeptical argument is that Astrology is based on a psychological need that people have to get quick answers to their problems. Can't remember what that argument is but half the undergrads in College right now are psych majors so obviously this is true. Thagard argues another point and says that Astrology is testable and mentions Gauquelin's studies.

One of the big problems with Astrology is, Thagard says, the Precession of the Equinoxes. The Vedic Astrologers use the planets in their real spots and the Western Astrologers don't. Can't argue with that. I'm pretty concerned about this as well so I can't argue with Thagard's argument. He also says that Astrologers ** are conservative ** and don't try to improve their systems so the study is antiquated. (TeeHee, I lo--00000-ve this argument). He says that Psychology has pretty much replaced Astrology. Well, he wrote this back in 1978 and psychology and psychiatry have had a lot more time to turn in on themselves at this point. Just try asking your local neighborhood shrink how Serotonin works. Fumes will come out the back of his neck but he won't give you an answer.

Thagard brings up many other good points about why Astrology is a pseudoscience. It sure would be great to see what he thinks now, if anything, since Science has sort of shifted into thinking that it can't explain everything. I personally don't think that most Astrologers think of themselves as Scientists which is why Astrology can easily be thought of as a PseudoScience. Who says Astrologers need to be Scientists? I mean, the paycheck sure would be awesome. But Astrologers tend to gain their insights from direct observation with a system that views people from a much broader perspective of Life than psychology does certainly. It would be difficult for me to say what an Astrologer looks for in a person's chart as there seems to be many branches of study at this point. This is one of the problems with the profession that Thagard talks about. But, trained Astrologers look at these maps of what a person is born with and what he is becoming and how he got there. So few really know how to really read the maps, and even fewer will admit it. And, well, Westerners are reading the wrong maps because of the Precession problem. Perhaps if Astrologers stopped trying to turn their conferences into pseudo Love Fests and Psychobabble huddles, they could get together and decide to fix the maps.

Paul Thagard is a Canadian Philosopher, Psychologist, Scientist. I can't find his Birthdate. His writing is very clear and easy to read and researched. (Mercury-Pluto trine?). List of links to articles written by Thagard. http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Coherence.html.