> On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Sodom wrote:
>
> > Trial and error is a very valuable tool, but trial and error comes
> after
> > a concept has been formulated based on observation. In trial and
> error,
> > you still have a starting point, a process and a result.
> [clip]
> > In order to convince me that astrology was more
> > than coincedental, you would need to show some connection other than
>
> > existence itself.
>
> Sounds like you're asking for proof of a hypothesis before you're
> willing
> to conduct an experiment. That's not what you're saying is it?
>
> -Prof. Tim
No, I'm saying there needs to be some evidence for a starting point.
Some control method that is reliable. Also, specifics would need to
exist in astrology instead of hazy generalization. If it could pass
that, then other possibilities would need to be ruled out. After all, a
hypothesis usually comes from somewhere other than fancy? You wouldn't
want to use fancy as the basis of a hypothesis would you Tim?
Sodom