any Kurt Cobain Fans here?

[cintyram]

http://digg.com/celebrity/If_you_think_Kurt_Cobain_killed_himself_think_again

[Triarius Fidelis]

I used to listen to Nirvana a lot, but now usually heavy metal. Ironically, most of the artists I like, unlike the late Cobain, are probably well-adjusted and don't have weapons, drug habits, or psychotic, less-talented spouses...

[Colonel Panic]

I still love "Nevermind", especially from "Polly" onwards, and their acoustic album was good too.

People either seem to love Nirvana or hate them, there's no middle way. I don't know how true astrology is but I'm a Piscean like Kurt was so perhaps I'm on the same wavelength as him in some way.

Best,

Colonel Panic.

[Triarius Fidelis]

I don't know how true astrology

I submit that it isn't at all.

[cintyram]

astrology is a study of something. just like biology, physiology etc..
so i don't know how you can submit that it is not true at all!!
so it is tough to test the veracity of something that is not testable!!
-ram

[Triarius Fidelis]

But it isn't scientific.

[rbistolfi]

That is a problem if you submit to falsifiabilitys theories.
I agree with you, astrology is not testable, but biology is, they are not at the same level. The thing is some devotes of astrology are not helping too much to the prestige of that kind of studies.
I think is funny, no predictive theory is properly testable, and there is no stats about astrologies predictions. But some kind of physics studies -for example- has lot more prestige, even when they are just statistical and partial too.
--
btw, I like nirvana, they played in Argentina once, big concert. Kurt was not in his better days, I remember. Was a short concert, with no hits at all, no "nevermind" songs. Press hated it, fans loved it.
I think there is some kind of mith about drugs, madness, and art.

[wcs]

Why is astrology not testable? Saying that the position of a certain celestial body or bodies at the moment of birth influences someone's personality is a hypothesis that can be tested, albeit a pretty vague one.
If we make it more specific by saying that (say) Piscians will share such and such personality traits as opposed to (say) Aquarians, then we can test it. We can just grab a bunch of randomly selected Piscians and Aquarians, run standard personality tests on them, and analyse the results statistically to see if there is an effect of astrological sign...
Also, if Aquarians are supposed to be in a particular good week for love or money or whatever, but Piscians are supposed to be having a bad time that week, we can just grab the same two groups, and use some dependent measure to see how their love/money/whatever situation changed (anything really, from asking them questions, to how their bank account balances change during that week, to standardized tests, to physiological measures). In order to make sure that the effect is the result of the position of stars and such during that week, run the study again when astrological predictions say that the Aquarians will have a bad week and the Piscians a great one, and you should see the reverse effect.
Of course, the researcher wouldn't be able to experimentally manipulate someone's sign or the position of bodies, but you could still test these hypothesis.
Not being a scientific field doesn't imply that that field doesn't generate hypothesis that can be disproved.

[wcs]

Oh, and to go back to Nirvana...  I'm listening to In Utero right now and reminiscing on the early nineties. They're still one of my favourite bands, for sure.

[The Headacher]

I think that whoever killed Cobain did the phenomenon Nirvana a big pleasure. I can't imagine people still being fan of the wreck he would've been now had he still lived.

[rbistolfi]

wcs, but what is needed to prove here is a causal relation and some predictions that are too vague. I can do statistical studies about almost anything. For example, I can count the times I cough, and the times a bird sings on my window. That will give a result, lets say, 24.38 coughs/bird. Does this prove a relation between my coughs and birds? Looks like this kind of inferences are getting very common in science today, just read the scientific media and you will found a lot of falacias (I lost the english word for this, I mean a "wrong inference, syllogist or reasoning").

[Triarius Fidelis]

wcs, but what is needed to prove here is a causal relation and some predictions that are too vague. I can do statistical studies about almost anything. For example, I can count the times I cough, and the times a bird sings on my window. That will give a result, lets say, 24.38 coughs/bird. Does this prove a relation between my coughs and birds? Looks like this kind of inferences are getting very common in science today, just read the scientific media and you will found a lot of falacias (I lost the english word for this, I mean a "wrong inference, syllogist or reasoning").

rbistolfi, the terms English speakers tend to use, also of Latin origin, is 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' (to wrongly assume that B happened because of prior event A with no substantial correlation).



But falacias looks like 'fallacious', as in a 'fallacious argument'.

In any case, for anyone interested, take the astrology section from your newspaper, and cut the signs from their descriptions, then pair the two categories randomly and see if anyone can spot your trick. One astrology reading can apply to almost anyone. It's so dumb the Raygun administration used it to make vital decisions. I'm a Taurus but I don't have every Taurus trait, only some traits that nearly anyone can have. When astrology can make incisive predictions like science, I'll reconsider...

[rbistolfi]

I see hanu, thanks. The english word for "ergo" is "hence", rigth?
Do you call "fallacious" to the following wrong inferences?

1. A then B,
2. no A,
3. ergo, no B

and also,

1. A then B
2. B
3. ergo, A

Sorry for the free english lesson 

[Triarius Fidelis]

I see hanu, thanks. The english word for "ergo" is "hence", rigth?
Do you call "fallacious" to the following wrong inferences?

1. A then B,
2. no A,
3. ergo, no B

and also,

1. A then B
2. B
3. ergo, A

Sorry for the free english lesson 

Hence and ergo mean the same thing in English. Anyway, "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is really more a way to say that A causes B without any good reason or rigorous experiment. e.g.,

"The sun rises after the rooster crows, therefore the crow of the rooster causes the sun to rise."
"My friend died when he reached the age of 65, therefore becoming 65 kills you."

[rbistolfi]

Ok, we use "falacia" properly for the bad inferences like above, in the deductive syllogism. But frequently is used with inductive inferences too. I dont use this tech terms for years, and I dont trust in google for this, thanks.