Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME FORUMS BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:52 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Astrological Ideas in The Extended Phenotype 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4944
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1081
Thanked: 1040 times in 813 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Astrological Ideas in The Extended Phenotype
Robert Tulip wrote:
I don’t agree that Dawkins is ‘silent on what drives evolution’. His work is precisely about this question. The extended phenotype, the effects of genes in the world, is the point of linkage between the gene and its niche. Natural forces provide the enabling context for all evolution. The description of these natural forces enables us to understand the direction of evolution. The slow wind that Dawkins describes is an example of a weak natural force, blowing on average one mile per thousand years. My suggestion is that we can look for such slow weak forces by examining the regular cosmic factors that provide the external structure within which life on earth has evolved. The day and year are major observable structures, cyclic patterns of terrestrial time, that strongly bind the direction of evolution through diurnal and seasonal cycles. If the day and year sit within bigger older regular structures, it is entirely logical to postulate that these structures are, in your paradoxical phrase, a weak (but powerful) force.

If Dawkins would label "natural forces" as driving evolution, he would do so more to indicate where we are ignorant than to suggest an answer. "Natural forces" is no answer at all, any more than "cosmic forces" is. In science, there is always a frontier that is beyond our current knowledge, because we have to learn continuously by experiment and induction. Dawkins isn't answering any question with his "slow wind" analogy, only guiding us in speculation.

The question that is still beggared is where your science is. Starting with a paradigm is nothing more than using deduction, isn't it? Where is the data that shows any observable or inferrable physical effect of planetary motion or position on life on earth? It's not enough to believe that all of that "must have" influence over evolution and human history. You could say that to look for or even expect such evidence is logical, but it wouldn't matter because not all logical processes lead to scientific evidence.


_________________
Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance that he himself has spun.

Clifford Geertz


Last edited by DWill on Sun Jan 17, 2010 12:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
Robert Tulip
Sun Jan 17, 2010 12:11 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Online
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 5346
Location: California
Thanks: 677
Thanked: 1374 times in 1083 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Astrological Ideas in The Extended Phenotype
DWill, I think the answer is that we know many of the specifics that cause change, but that's like knowing the colors of a painting. Listing off the colors doesn't produce art. We could say that Africans have darker skin due to longer sun exposure. Yet, that's one influence/adaptation amongst millions. While we may know more and more of the specifics, it serves the general audience better for a scientist if he refers to these influences as natural forces. There's nothing mystical about these natural forces, it's just that there are so many, and we've only yet hypothesized so few.

The question is whether or not there are seemingly influential forces that actually do not serve any benefit to be adapted to, for an organism to be sensitive to. How many organisms have adapted to the steady continual drifting of continents, or the el nino weather patterns, comit orbits, etc.

My problem with the direction Robert is currently going is that there is nothing physical to adapt to. He splts the seasons into 3 mathematically, but there's no physical corollary. It's a manipulation of data, not an observation of physical processes. The same is true of the 2148 year ages as well.



The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post:
Robert Tulip
Sun Jan 17, 2010 1:40 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Slut

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4147
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1137
Thanked: 1192 times in 896 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Astrological Ideas in The Extended Phenotype
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
The historical theory I have presented suggests that the Great Year has a temporal pulse with period 2148 years, so that each of the twelve ages of the Great Year have a common repeating pattern, much as the day and the year have common repeating patterns, and in direct resonance with these shorter periods.

In what way does the 2148 year 'pulse' manifest? The temporal pulse. A pulse refers to something physical, right? This is the same question I had for the divisions you mentioned between the seasons, each 'month'. What is the physical demarcation?

The Zodiac Age, the 2148 year pulse of the earth, manifests as a resonant relation between the earth and the whole solar system. My Solar System Planet Clock shows how the whole solar system, as indicated in the motion of the sun against the center of mass, has a pulse of 179 years, precisely 1/144th of the earth's Great Year.

The Great Year is a planetary pulse of 25765 years (like the wobble period of a gyroscope) within a larger system (sun and gas giants) that has pulse of 179 years. The 2148 year Zodiacal Age is the period that links these two natural cycles.

SSB/ZA = ZA/GY and ZA = √ (SSBxGY), where Solar System Barycenter = SSB, Zodiacal Age = ZA and Great Year = GY. Setting SSB = 1 and GY = 144, we have 1/ZA = ZA/144, giving ZA = 12. While there is a small drift in this relation, it basically stands so that the Planet Clock is an accurate model of the solar system over millions of years at least. The Age can be further divided into twelve hours as described at my planet clock link.

Here we see the cycle of 12, as shown in ordinary clocks, is embedded in the temporal structure of the earth. It means that the model described here of the Great Year is not just a one-time event, but is a permanent depiction of the temporality of the earth since the solar system stabilised. There have been about 175,000 Great Years since life began, or about 100 since the homo genus split from australopithecus 2.5 million years ago.

If each Great Year is like the 'wheel spinning backwards' on a movie film, relating to the much faster forward spin of the year/wheel, and moreover the Great Year has a precise physical relation with the solar system, then we can analyse the Great Year to understand the astrophysical structure of terrestrial time. This is an ancient problem - Plato said in the Timaeus that the key to wisdom is to understand how the solar system relates to the galaxy.



Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:20 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Online
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 5346
Location: California
Thanks: 677
Thanked: 1374 times in 1083 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Astrological Ideas in The Extended Phenotype
Quote:
The Zodiac Age, the 2148 year pulse of the earth, manifests as a resonant relation between the earth and the whole solar system.


Why do you continue answering without answering?!? What is this 'resonant relation'?!? Do you mean an actual physical resonance?



Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:35 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Slut

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4147
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1137
Thanked: 1192 times in 896 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Astrological Ideas in The Extended Phenotype
DWill wrote:
Starting with a paradigm is nothing more than using deduction, isn't it? Where is the data that shows any observable or inferrable physical effect of planetary motion or position on life on earth? It's not enough to believe that all of that "must have" influence over evolution and human history. You could say that to look for or even expect such evidence is logical, but it wouldn't matter because not all logical processes lead to scientific evidence.


The paradigm is based on inductive observation, using deductive inference within an empirical framework of inductive observation. Claims of historical effects of cosmic cycles are deductive, but the model I have presented in the solar system planet clock is inductive, based purely on observation. It is inductive to say the Great Year marks the slow passage of the sun around the ecliptic as seen from earth, but deductive to say that the Great Year divides in twelve Zodiacal Ages by harmonic resonance with the solar system as a whole, and even more deductive to say that these twelve ages relate to the structure of the annual year and have observable historical effects.

You are correct to observe that this model presents a structure of time that may or may not have observable effects. We know that if there are any such effects, they are too weak to show clear patterns that stand without dispute in mainstream science to date.

As Interbane noted, Gauquelin's claimed Mars Effect is hotly disputed, showing that even if his statistics are valid, his critics are able to obfuscate enough to prevent mainstream recognition. If there is an effect, it is extremely weak, comparable to Dawkins' evolutionary wind blowing at one mile per thousand years.

My opinion is that this situation regarding acceptance of Gauquelin's findings is in large part political, with the modern rationalist movement quite hostile to the possibility of cosmic effects as a recrudescence of primitive fatalism. Analytical methodology has been weak in this area, with Gauquelin the best. His hostile reception drove him to suicide, and the implication that he may have killed himself because his claims were fraudulent is a foul slur on one of the greatest scientists of modern times.

The question is where we can look for information to validate the deductive model of the Great Year as the framework of history. Einstein looked to observation of the perihelion of Mercury to provide inductive proof for his deductive model of relativity. Finding evidence for the Great Year in history is paradoxically both easier and harder than the relativity problem. It is easier in that there is a wealth of mythic material in the Bible, the Vedas and elsewhere that shows ancient thought was structured by this Great Year model. As Tat Tvam Asi and I have argued, using the lens of precession unlocks the code of the Bible. However, the scientific status and implications of this material lacks mainstream acceptance.

This paradigm shift is more complex than relativity for a range of reasons. The only data we have to validate the claimed temporal cycle of the Great Year is its presence in the evolution of human thought, because other effects are too weak to leave any trace. The abundant traces in mythology include the claim that the Holy City of the Bible is primarily a description of the Great Year. This is a jolting shift from traditional theology, providing a scientific framework to read and understand the Bible. The fact that the Bible remains in widespread use as a tool to contest scientific method is a stumbling block to this scientific research program.

__________ 18 Jan 2010 06:23 __________

Interbane wrote:
Quote:
The Zodiac Age, the 2148 year pulse of the earth, manifests as a resonant relation between the earth and the whole solar system.


Why do you continue answering without answering?!? What is this 'resonant relation'?!? Do you mean an actual physical resonance?


Yes I do mean an actual physical resonance. My discovery of the relation between the Great Year and the Solar System Barycenter is a new scientific finding. The earth sits within both the 25765 year spin wobble cycle of the Great Year and the 179 year cycle of the solar system barycenter as permanent structural cycles. The barycenter cycle naturally causes the Great Year cycle to divide in twelve segments at the period in inverse relation to both, ie the Zodiacal Age, as a main natural rhythm of the earth.

As I said here in response to a question from Oblivion,
Quote:
Your metaphor of an orbital sounding board is good. The first challenge is to accept as a hypothesis that planetary motions over very long time periods form wave patterns which can interact. Your musical analogy of the sounding board, which expands the resonant volume and tone of a musical note, helps to explain how this may be possible.

The main long term cycle of movement for the earth is the Great Year, caused by the wobble of the axis. The main long term cycle of movement for the solar system is the position of the sun against the centre of mass, a cycle caused by the orbits of the gas giants. The solar system as a whole is therefore like a ‘sounding board’ for the earth, but in a sense this relation is mutual, in that we can see the Great Year as the mundane sounding board for the basic rhythm of the whole solar system.

Continuing the musical analogy, we have two wave functions, one with period 25765 years (the Great Year of the earth) and one with period 179 years (the solar system centre of mass). In music, each octave doubles the frequency. Therefore, if we consider the Great Year as analogous to a musical note of frequency one hertz, the centre of mass has frequency 144 hertz and the Zodiacal Age has frequency 12 hertz.

Modelling the Great Year frequency as the note C 64 Hz, the Zodiacal Age has frequency twelve times this, G 768 Hz, and the Centre of Mass has frequency twelve times higher again, D 9216 Hz. The multiple of twelve times the frequency produces a note that is three octaves and a perfect fifth higher. On a piano, these three notes are low C, middle G and high D, each 3.5 octaves apart.

The perfect fifth is the next strongest resonant frequency after the octave. So we can say the frequencies of the Great Year and the movement of the solar system resonate against each other like sounding boards through their common perfect fifth relation to the frequency of the Zodiacal Age.



Sun Jan 17, 2010 3:23 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Online
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 5346
Location: California
Thanks: 677
Thanked: 1374 times in 1083 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Astrological Ideas in The Extended Phenotype
In what way does 179 years relate to the great age? The numbers don't match.

The net effect of what you're suggesting is that the center of mass of the solar system affects life on Earth? Did you incorporate all massive bodies into your formulas? The asteroids in the kuiper belt and such? Does the barycenter occur at the precise same point with relation to Earth every 179 years?

This still doesn't explain what the net effect would be as a discrete physical effect every 2148 years.



Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:47 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Slut

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4147
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1137
Thanked: 1192 times in 896 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Astrological Ideas in The Extended Phenotype
Interbane wrote:
In what way does 179 years relate to the great age? The numbers don't match.
In rounded numbers, 179 x 12 = 2148, 2148 x 12 = 25776.
In more exact numbers, 178.92 x 12 = 2147.04, 2147.04 x 12 = 25764.48.

The 1/144 SSB/GY ratio is extremely close.
Quote:
The net effect of what you're suggesting is that the center of mass of the solar system affects life on Earth? Did you incorporate all massive bodies into your formulas? The asteroids in the kuiper belt and such? Does the barycenter occur at the precise same point with relation to Earth every 179 years?
That's easy Interbane, and shows you have not read the text at my solar system planet clock closely enough, where I state
Quote:
Planetary influence on the centre of mass is shown by the barycentric formula r = a/(1+m1/m2), where r is the radius of the sun, a is the distance from the sun to a planet, m1 is the mass of the sun and m2 is the mass of the planet. The relative effects of the planets on the barycenter given by this formula are Jupiter 49%, Saturn 27%, Neptune 15% and Ouranos 8%. The four inner planets in total have 0.1% of Jupiter’s effect on the barycenter. These relative planetary effects are readily seen by examining a graph of the barycenter-sun distance over time, in which the three biggest planets produce a wave function with period 179 years, or 1/144th of the Great Year of the earth.


Each JSN conjunction every 179 years occurs thirty degrees further around the ecliptic, as shown in my planet clock, so over the period of the Age there is one conjunction in each of the twelve signs of the zodiac within a conjunction family.

Quote:
This still doesn't explain what the net effect would be as a discrete physical effect every 2148 years.
You are quite correct here. I am arguing this is a deep rhythm encoded into all life on earth. Quantifying its effects is rather like getting data for Dr Dawkins' hypothetical slow wind. I tend to think of it on the Indian causal model of karma, with the idea that causality has slow waves with period one age. It means we are now getting to the stage of the Age of Pisces that the Age of Aries reached in 140 BC, just as we are now getting to the same point of the year that we reached on this date last year and every year before that. The annual climate is steady, although the weather differs a lot. This is highly speculative, but I suggest provides fertile ground for historical analysis.



Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:59 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Online
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 5346
Location: California
Thanks: 677
Thanked: 1374 times in 1083 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Astrological Ideas in The Extended Phenotype
Quote:
You are quite correct here. I am arguing this is a deep rhythm encoded into all life on earth. Quantifying its effects is rather like getting data for Dr Dawkins' hypothetical slow wind


How would this rhythm encode itself into life on Earth? This is so much more far reaching than suggesting an adaptation, such as can be found in organisms responding to the rising and falling of tides.


In any case, small gravitational shifts are not comparable to wind. Extremely weak wind has direction and is constant, if only on average. This was my problem originally, and the one I keep referring to. Why does life on Earth care about the barycenter of the solar system? Exceptionally weak wind I could hypothesize, it's practical. Astrological influences is nothing more than grasping at straws. In what ways do you hypothesize life would be affected? Humor me, I bet you can't even form a good hypothesis! That's reverse psychology, not an insult.



Mon Jan 18, 2010 2:14 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Slut

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4147
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1137
Thanked: 1192 times in 896 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Astrological Ideas in The Extended Phenotype
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
You are quite correct here. I am arguing this is a deep rhythm encoded into all life on earth. Quantifying its effects is rather like getting data for Dr Dawkins' hypothetical slow wind.
How would this rhythm encode itself into life on Earth? This is so much more far reaching than suggesting an adaptation, such as can be found in organisms responding to the rising and falling of tides. In any case, small gravitational shifts are not comparable to wind. Extremely weak wind has direction and is constant, if only on average. This was my problem originally, and the one I keep referring to. Why does life on Earth care about the barycenter of the solar system? Exceptionally weak wind I could hypothesize, it's practical. Astrological influences is nothing more than grasping at straws. In what ways do you hypothesize life would be affected? Humor me, I bet you can't even form a good hypothesis! That's reverse psychology, not an insult.
The main long term cycle of the earth, after the day and the year, is the Great Year. The Great Year is written in to the Bible as the structure of the Holy City, providing inductive evidence for the deductive reasoning from the astronomy of the Great Year, much as the observation of precession of the perihelion of Mercury provided inductive evidence for the deductive mathematics of relativity.

If we hypothesise a microbe living on a gyroscope with stable wobble for billions of years, we can well imagine that it could internalise the wobble in its DNA. Exactly the same thing applies for the earth. Now, if this hypothetical gyroscope is within a gravitational field with a weak pulse with period precisely 1/144th of the wobble period, how would this manifest? This is the situation for the earth. My claim is that the pulsing field of the center of mass may not have direct effect, but may be sufficient to provide a regular structure to the earth's wobble. Triple conjunctions of Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune every 179 years form a barycenter wave pattern, shown in my essay The Gas Giant Planets, The Holy City and the Great Year. These triple conjunctions circle the ecliptic every 2148 years due to each conjunction in a family occurring almost precisely one zodiac sign past the last one, so, in simplified terms, after twelve events the conjunction is in about the same place. The 2148 year return period of the JSN conjunctions may well aggregate its effect, in harmony with the Great Year, such that a temporal cycle of 2148 years duration is established on earth.

How I see that life would be affected derives from the claim that the signs produce an annual rhythm, caused by the solstices and equinoxes, with cusps around the 21st of each month. Although this rhythm is too weak to be seen in statistical analysis to date, my view is that is because of weak research models, and that larger and more systematic epidemiological studies will show sign effects as real. Gauquelin did not find any evidence for signs in his research, although he found compelling evidence for planetary effects.

The present state of play is that astrology has the status of a pseudo-science because of lack of evidence. My claim is that starting from the longest regular periods of the earth provides a more scientific way into the subject matter than psychological analysis of horoscopes, a topic that now generally relies more on symbolic imagination than mathematical evidence of the sort I am providing here.

Here is a gospel song I have written about this material

Seven days of creation, into the seventh day.
Twenty four hours of the Day of Brahm, into the third hour.

On the first day of creation, Adam and Eve fell from the Garden of Eden
On the first day.

On the second day of creation, Noah and his Ark survived the flood.
On the second day.

On the third day of creation, Abraham married Sarah of the Vedas.
On the third day.

On the fourth day of creation, King David brought the Ark to Jerusalem
On the fourth Day

On the fifth day of creation came Jesus Christ, the alpha and omega, the sun of love
On the fifth day

The sixth day of creation was the dawn of modern times.
On the sixth day.

And the seventh day is the sabbath day, the healing day, the day of peace
Into the seventh day.

There are twenty four hours in the day of Brahm, into the third hour.
There are seven days of creation, the future is the seventh day.

Robert Tulip



Last edited by Robert Tulip on Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:15 am, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:11 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4944
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1081
Thanked: 1040 times in 813 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Astrological Ideas in The Extended Phenotype
Robert, I'd be a fool not to respect your intellect, but it seems so clear to me that your hunger for transcendence is the powerful force behind your insistence on astrological science. You won't like this comparison, but it is the best way I can make my point. Creation scientists also have the accoutrements of science behnd them. They have their data and schematics to create the impression of empiricism. But they know going in what their data must prove; they already assume the theory to be true, so it is just a matter of their arranging the facts to line up with it.


_________________
Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance that he himself has spun.

Clifford Geertz


Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:15 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Online
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 5346
Location: California
Thanks: 677
Thanked: 1374 times in 1083 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Astrological Ideas in The Extended Phenotype
Quote:
If we hypothesise a microbe living on a gyroscope with stable wobble for billions of years, we can well imagine that it could internalise the wobble in its DNA.


Why would we hypothesize that it would internalize the wobble, whatever that means? In any case, a wobble of a gyroscope is a detectable effect. You're desperately hoping that life may possibly be sensitive to forces that border on the nonexistant. If some form of life is able to form the sensitivity to this wobble, you're then desperately hoping that it will somehow, someway, adapt to it with a mutation or two. I'm not sure why an organism would do this, it would be more random chance than out of selective pressure. Even then, for the next hundred generations of it's species, the incredibly weak forces would be different. Different until this family of organisms just so happens to find a home of ten feet higher elevation, rendering the sensitivty obsolete.

Quote:
Gauquelin did not find any evidence for signs in his research, although he found compelling evidence for planetary effects.


Why do you vilify those who seek to keep the scientific process clean? You side with the person whose data you want to be correct. What makes you think his experiment wasn't truly flawed, as any person familiar with human bias will tell you that this is the most likely case? What other scientists in equally dubious positions have you dismissed out of hand, without realizing? It's a bad question, since you won't also remember them.



Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:11 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Slut

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4147
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1137
Thanked: 1192 times in 896 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Astrological Ideas in The Extended Phenotype
DWill wrote:
Robert, I'd be a fool not to respect your intellect, but it seems so clear to me that your hunger for transcendence is the powerful force behind your insistence on astrological science. You won't like this comparison, but it is the best way I can make my point. Creation scientists also have the accoutrements of science behnd them. They have their data and schematics to create the impression of empiricism. But they know going in what their data must prove; they already assume the theory to be true, so it is just a matter of their arranging the facts to line up with it.
What I am doing here is not like creation science which has been thoroughly disproved. No one will find inconsistencies between my claims and empirical observation for the simple reason that there are none, because my work is based on observation and scientific method. There is no "impression of empiricism", but rather actual empirical study of an area that has been neglected. Any errors detected I am more than happy to correct.

__________ 19 Jan 2010 05:19 __________

Interbane wrote:
Quote:
Gauquelin did not find any evidence for signs in his research, although he found compelling evidence for planetary effects.
Why do you vilify those who seek to keep the scientific process clean? You side with the person whose data you want to be correct. What makes you think his experiment wasn't truly flawed, as any person familiar with human bias will tell you that this is the most likely case? What other scientists in equally dubious positions have you dismissed out of hand, without realizing? It's a bad question, since you won't also remember them.


If only you knew how wrong your comment about the scientific process is!! Please read below the obvious evidence of corruption in the 'scientific' review of Gauqelin's work.

Here is a summary on Gauquelin
Quote:
The Gauquelin Controversy
by Maria J. Mateus
as chronicled by John Anthony West in The Case for Astrology

Michel Gauquelin (1928-1991)
Michel Gauquelin was a graduate in statistics and psychology from the Sorbonne who, together with his wife Francoise, conducted the most significant body of statistical research in astrology to date. While his work does not substantiate some canons of traditional astrology, it conclusively vindicates astrology's fundamental premise: that there this a relationship between the planets' positions at the moment of birth and the direction of individual lives.

The body of Gauquelin's work extends over a period of 23 years (1949 -1973) and involved research into questions of professional studies; heredity studies; and character trait studies. By far the studies receiving the most notoriety involved correlations between the position of a planet in the natal chart and a person's chosen profession. Because of its extremely significant positive results, the most famous of these studies is commonly known as "the Mars effect".

Gauquelin's Findings (1955)
Gauquelin's preliminary profession findings involved two studies: the one comprised of a group of 576 birth charts revealed a correlation of Mars and Saturn with physicians at a chance level in the millions to one. The second study involving 508 births revealed the same results for other professions correlating them with their traditionally related planets: Mars with athletes, Saturn with scientists, the Moon with writers, and Jupiter with actors and politicians. These findings only applied to eminent professionals and were not present in the charts of average professionals. The significance level for some of these correlations was also in the millions to one chance level. The research was published in 1955 in L’influence des Astres, where Michel argued that what he was demonstrating was not evidence of astrology, but some other celestial influence. This work was ignored by his academic colleagues until Michel set about seeking professional peer review.

The Skeptics Respond
After much cajoling by Gaquelin for a peer review, the 1st critique came from Marcel Boll, a well-known French science-writer and member of the The Belgian Committee for the Investigation of Paranormal Phenomena (The Belgian Para Committee hereafter). His main objection was that the study used only birth data from France, which he claimed resulted in a national fluke. Had Gauquelin selected birth records from other countries, went Boll's logic, the results would be no better than chance! Any statistician would know that this objection was statistically ridiculous.

Professor Dauvillier, a Professor of Cosmic Physics at the College of France, replied that the correlation was a result of insufficient sample size.

Gauquelin Answers (1960)
Michel answered both challenges (even though the 1st was an illogical criticism) by collecting a database of 25,000 birth records in Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands. (England did not record birth times back then). The results of the replication study with European data were identical and just as significant showing the same planets in key sectors of the chart correlating with eminence in specific professions. There were some national variations but the results repeated significantly in the same direction as the original studies. A control group of non-specialized professions did not show any affect. The European studies were published in 1960 in Les Hommes et les Astres at the Gauquelin's own cost.

The Heredity Studies
During the 1960s, the Gauquelins conducted another massive study that examined astrological relationships between parents and their children. The 30,000 size sample of ordinary French citizens and their children revealed that when planets had certain planets in Sectors 1 and 4 of the charts, their children were also likely to have the same planets in the same sectors. The correlations between particular planets – such as the Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn – were stronger in that order. The significance level was 1 million to 1. Induced or Caesarean births did not show this pattern.

The Character Traits Studies
In the 1970s, Gauquelin then ran character trait analyses studies which grouped the 4 previously studied professions according to personality traits – collected from the biographical data -- which comprised a profile for each profession. The results correlated the profiles with the same planets in the same sectors. The atypical profiles also correlated negatively with the significant sectors. In 1980, this study was replicated in America, yielding identically positive results.

Gauquelin vs. The Belgian Para Committee (1965)
Five years after having addressed the Belgian Committee's ridiculous demographic objection to his original profession studies and subsequently being ignored by them, Gauquelin again proposed replications of his Mars effect on sports champions study by both he and the Committee. The procedural details were agreed upon and each side conducted their own tests. The results for both sides exactly matched the findings of Gauquelin's original experiments. The Committee refrained from publishing their findings until Gauquelin decided to publish his own. Although they could not identify any problems with the methodology they had agreed to, the Committee nonetheless explained away the results as a product of a demographic error which they did not identity or show evidence for.

CSICOP and the Zelen Test (1977)
The Gauquelin controversy reached the US in 1975 when a manifesto attacking astrology and signed by 186 eminent scientists appeared in The Humanist magazine. Gauquelin found his work ignorantly attacked and was forced to defend it through his own reply to the scientific publication. A professor of statistical science at Harvard and member of the Commitee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP hereafter), by the name of Marvin Zelen got involved in the debate and proposed his own study to test the "demographic error" argued by the Belgian Commitee. The Zelen test, as it became known, examined the charts of average individuals born on the same day and general location as the Mars sports champions in Gauquelin's study. The idea was that if the effect was due to demographics and not the planets, the same effect would show up with ordinary citizens. The results not only vindicated Gauquelin, but also served to demolish the demographics argument once and for all. Not wanting to publish findings supportive of astrological effects, CSICOP changed the rules and re-spun the study of non-champions, into a re-examination of the Mars effect on sports champions. Knowing that the group of 303 would show an effect, the test group was broken down into smaller sub-samples so as to water down the effect into meaninglessness. Even so, the KZA (Kurtz, Zelen, Abel) report could not hide the smell of nonscientific conduct.

The American Replication (1979-80)
Knowing how badly the Zelen test made them look, the KZA report concluded that an American replication with someone other than Gauquelin collecting the data was needed. Gauquelin happily accepted and provided CSICOP the exact procedures that he had followed in his Mars Effect studies. These stipulations required that the sample only include eminent sports champions since the effect was not present in non-eminent professionals. Paul Kurtz (chairman of CSICOP) collected the data and astronomer Dennis Rawlins conducted the statistical analyses. As Kurtz sent Rawlins the data (and unsolicited cash) he asked Rawlins to give him confidential periodic advanced looks at the results. As the batches of names came in, the sample the percentages for Mars in the key sectors kept mysteriously declining. What was initially an expected effect of 22% for the first batch of names, incrementally dropped not only to the 16% expected by chance, but it ended at 13% (below what chance would indicate p=.02) with the submission of 82 late inclusions that Kurtz had "accidentally forgotten" to send. Naturally, the doctored findings published in the Skeptical Enquirer did not confirm Gauquelin's work.

Dennis Rawlins and sTARBABY (1981)
We would have been none the wiser to the behind the scenes shenanigans exhibited by CSICOP and might have found the American findings of both the Zelen test and the Mars replication perfectly legitimate were it not for the excommunication of one of their involved members, Dennis Rawlins. The acrimony between Rawlins and CSICOP began with the Zelen test and continued through the replication study even while he himself was conducting the statistics. Rawlins' own account of the events that transpired during the Gauquelin investigations provides testimonial evidence that KZA knew they were in trouble and not only deliberately butchered the Zelen test, but doctored the data in the replication study as well.

The Aftermath
Gauquelin challenged the study in a series of voluminous correspondence that was selectively published and edited in the Skeptical Inquirer. Rawlins was not permitted by the magazine to voice his dissent (hence, the sTARBABY publication in the 1981 issue of Fate magazine). Subsequent objective investigations by historian Patrick Curry concluding that the US study was not a legitimate replication of the Gauquelin study, prompted Gauquelin to propose a new European replication with written down rules and an airtight verification treaty. When he did not get a reply, Gauquelin carried out the study himself with the usual expected results he and others had obtained countless times before. Suddenly CSICOP came alive only to attack the methodology after the fact. In "A Reappraisal" published in the Skeptical Inquirer, K.Z.A. admit to varying degrees of carelessness in handling of the US studies and in neglecting to mention that the Zelen test actually confirmed the chance level calculations in the non-professional samples, but evade Rawlins' published charges of academic dishonesty and fraud.

The Ertel Report
While CSICOP was still insisting that there was some as yet undetected bias in Gauquelin's selection criteria for the Mars samples, they did nothing to try to detect it. Instead, an unaffiliated psychology professor from Gottingen University by the name of Suitbert Ertel set about establishing a more rigorous and consistent way of defining eminence, hoping in the process that this might be the flaw that accounted for the extraordinary correlations. Thus, when the athletes were separated out into groups with varying degrees of eminence, Ertel found that the results precisely indicated what Gauquelin himself had found -- that the more eminent the athlete the stronger the effect. Furthermore, when Ertel corrected for Gauquelin's inconsistencies in methodology from one study to the next, the Mars effect was enhanced, not diminished. Ertel's study not only conclusively put to rest the notion that there was a selection bias -- either unconscious or deliberate -- in Gauquelin's methodology, it also vindicated his findings. The Skeptical Inquirer refused to publish Ertel's report claiming that the language was too technical, despite the fact that it boasts amongst its readership some of the most brilliant scientists and academics. The work was published instead in the Journal for Scientific Exploration (#3).

© Valentino Salvato 2007



Last edited by Robert Tulip on Mon Jan 18, 2010 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Jan 18, 2010 2:20 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Online
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 5346
Location: California
Thanks: 677
Thanked: 1374 times in 1083 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Astrological Ideas in The Extended Phenotype
Quote:
If only you knew how wrong your comment about the scientific process is!! Please read below the obvious evidence of corruption in the 'scientific' review of Gauqelin's work.


If there's anything I know well, it's the scientific process. The source you cited is biased, just as I am biased, just as you are biased.

"The Mars Effect hypothesis was based on data collected by Gauquelin. The evidence for Gauquelin's massive bias is compelling. No value can be attached to the hypotheses these data gave rise to. This does not imply any willful deceit on the part of Gauquelin. The eminent physicist René Blondlot never gave up believing in his nonexistent N-rays and died 27 years after his 'discovery'. The academician Boris Deryagin acknowledged after ten years he was mistaken about polywater. Two-time Nobel laureate Linus Pauling never gave up his belief in vitamin C, even though clear clinical evidence never materialized. Even the best scientists can be trapped in illusions of their own making. Michel Gauquelin has died in 1991. His archive is gone, and no one knows what he would have said upon confrontation with his bias. Let's leave it that and move on to more fruitful research."

The full explanation of the effects of his bias are here: http://www.skepsis.nl/mars.html

Also, correlation does not equal causation. Why are the majority of professional hockey players born in January? Does the December solstice purport some effect into the unborn fetus at that late stage in pregnancy?

This is pseudoscience, and you're buying it hook line and sinker.



Mon Jan 18, 2010 2:50 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Slut

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4147
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1137
Thanked: 1192 times in 896 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Astrological Ideas in The Extended Phenotype
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
If we hypothesise a microbe living on a gyroscope with stable wobble for billions of years, we can well imagine that it could internalise the wobble in its DNA.

Why would we hypothesize that it would internalize the wobble, whatever that means? In any case, a wobble of a gyroscope is a detectable effect. You're desperately hoping that life may possibly be sensitive to forces that border on the nonexistant. If some form of life is able to form the sensitivity to this wobble, you're then desperately hoping that it will somehow, someway, adapt to it with a mutation or two. I'm not sure why an organism would do this, it would be more random chance than out of selective pressure. Even then, for the next hundred generations of it's species, the incredibly weak forces would be different. Different until this family of organisms just so happens to find a home of ten feet higher elevation, rendering the sensitivty obsolete.

DNA is a double helix. Interestingly, the solar system has a stable helical structure that pre-dates DNA. My model of 179 years of the helical structure of the solar system is photographed in my paper on The Gas Giant Planets, the Holy City and the Great Year. The Great Year consists of 144 of these 179 year models stacked on top of each other. This is hardly a "force that borders on the nonexistent", but rather an actual temporal structure that is reinforced and constituted by the spin wobble of the earth and the wobble of the system as a whole, in mutual resonance.

Your model of mutation is not right. Rather, the situation is that the helical structure of time forms the material context for the helical structure of DNA, which is entirely within the stable cosmic patterns of the cycles of the solar system. The structure of time for the solar system is encoded in all DNA from the start as its empirical foundation. Things partake of their birth conditions. Minor change in initial conditions cause major phenotypic differences.

In a different solar system from ours, the 60-base numbering system we use might not have evolved. We might be able to model a solar system structure that did not exhibit twelve-fold resonance to produce a clock with a base other than 60. For example if the gas giants and earth resonated against the number ten, rather than twelve, with 100 conjunctions in the earth's spin wobble period rather than the observed number of 144, we could work out planetary orbital and wobble periods that would produce a ten-base clock.

Our earth evolved within stable twelve-fold patterns, forming the temporal origin for our sixty-base clock. My solar system star clock operates perfectly on the multiple cached scales of the Great Year (25765 years), the Zodiacal Age (2148 years), the Solar System Barycenter period (179 years), the year, the day, half a day, the hour, the minute, and, as the fundamental unit of time, the second. Saturn and Neptune, meeting every 35.8 years, form the seconds of the minute and the minutes of the hour of earth's Zodiacal Age of 2148 years (2148 = 35.8 x 60) . This logical empirical analysis of the structure of time is not refutable because it is true. Any one who studies this material will readily form this conclusion. These numbers are based squarely on objective planetary data, the list of planetary positions used by science for space flight. It presents a basic challenge to scientific orthodoxy, opening a large new field in cyclic empirics. Apply all the tests you like.

__________ 19 Jan 2010 06:26 __________

Interbane wrote:
The full explanation of the effects of his bias are here: http://www.skepsis.nl/mars.html


This skepsis paper is garbage. I invite readers to compare the rival histories of the Gauquelin controversy. There is clear evidence of data-tampering by Gauquelin's so-called skeptical critics, while Gauquelin's work stands as providing abundant objective proof of planetary effects. The allegations of bias are wrong, aimed solely to deflect the challenge presented to the reigning paradigm of linear progress through scientific modernity. Gauquelin is the Galileo of the twentieth century.



Mon Jan 18, 2010 3:26 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Online
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 5346
Location: California
Thanks: 677
Thanked: 1374 times in 1083 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Astrological Ideas in The Extended Phenotype
Quote:
This skepsis paper is garbage. I invite readers to compare the rival histories of the Gauquelin controversy. There is clear evidence of data-tampering by Gauquelin's so-called skeptical critics, while Gauquelin's work stands as providing abundant objective proof of planetary effects.


On the contrary, Gauquelin's work is shown to be biased. The controversy caused by CSICOP's tampering of the evidence is a rallying call for paranormal advocates worldwide. This most certainly doesn't mean Gauquelin was right, it just means CSICOP was fraudulent. Read this book: Benski, C., et al. The Mars Effect. 1996, Prometheus Books.

The Mars Effect is garbage.


Quote:
DNA is a double helix. Interestingly, the solar system has a stable helical structure that pre-dates DNA.


In all the pictures of the solar system, I've never seen such a structure. Perhaps you're talking about a visual representation of motion in a 179 year process? This is a visual representation silly, not something physical. What the tangible effect for an Earthly organism would be are nothing more than alterations in gravity bordering on the nonexistant. Yes, these forces border on the nonexistant, as far as an organism is concerned. There is more gravity from a nearby tree than there is from some planet!!! You are blind to how ridiculous this is, you're acting like Stahrwe.

Quote:
Your model of mutation is not right. Rather, the situation is that the helical structure of time forms the material context for the helical structure of DNA, which is entirely within the stable cosmic patterns of the cycles of the solar system.


There is no helical structure to time. You're mistaking a visual 2d model for something physical. Do you understand what I mean when I mention net effect? I mean, what is physically detectable here on Earth? Let's pretend there may at one point have been an organism so sensitive to gravity that it could detect these infinitesimal fluctuations. The instant it changed elevation or moved next to an object with mass, it's readings would jump all over the place, it would lose track of anything beyond Earth. Continental drift would raise or lower the organism, affecting gravity more drastically than the 179 year change caused by the shifting barycenter. A raincloud in the sky would cause a change more massive than the shifting barycenter. After a lifetime of confused readings, this organism would have to record it's information somehow, hoping that the next 100 generations would do the same, so that by the time 179 years rolls around, it's information is embedded somewhere in one of it's distant decendants so that a pattern might possibly start to emerge, which actually wouldn't happen for another 179 years. That's considering each decendant is able to somehow biologically filter out all the confusing variables such as trees and rocks and elevation and weather and continental drift and comets and night and day and a great grandfather's mutation, etc etc. Which would of course be impossible. Now, considering the impossible possible, the species would then have to be concerned with this infinitesimal background gravitational fluctuation that started 100 generations or more ago. Let's say a situation occured, where the organism was jumping to grasp at food. It's ancestor, some 50 generations ago, would have missed the fruit by a fraction of a nanometre(go figure). So, the DNA somehow magically remembers the failure of the ancestor and decides only to jump for fruit that is a fraction of a nanometer higher once every 179 years.

But you're talking about something different(you must be). You're talking about the chemical interactions that originally formed DNA, right? So, in the timeline of competing protein chains, days or weeks, the effects of infinitesimal gravitational forces(with all confusing variables) is supposed to affect the physical structure of DNA itself as it (very)slightly shifts over the course of 179 years?

Quote:
Minor change in initial conditions cause major phenotypic differences.


Those words sound good in theory and are often applicable, but not here. What you're suggesting isn't a minor change. It's not a change at all. It's an infinitesimal gradation whose actual variance is infinitesimal. It is cancelled out by local noise.

You're also jumping between the helical structure of DNA, and an organism's phenotype. Which one are you referring to?

What would the phenotypic effect be without the 'initial conditions' that you're proposing? Can you hypothesize the difference? Would famous people stop dying every 2148 years seperate from other important events? Would we have developed a third eye?

With regards to the DNA, the helix is a general response to the stacking up of single monomer units into a polymer, which means DNA can’t help being a helix.

So the chain of causality must by necessity include an explanation for how infinitesimal gravitational variations dictated that life be composed of monomers and polymers. Not only this, but those infinitesimal gravitational variations would do this 'intelligently!', since they would want DNA to resemble the orbits their parent planets go through(not really, only in a reduced dimensional analogy) over the course of 179 years.

What I'm guessing you'll say is that you have no clue how the helix (analogy) of the solar system has incredible influence on how DNA formed, but that the coincidence is too large to neglect. Is that what you'd say? Do you think it's a coincidence that's too large to neglect? Is the face of the virgin mary on a piece of toast too much of a coincidence to neglect?

How can you throw away so much of what you know about human bias and false pattern seeking and continue to pursue this lunacy?

Quote:
This logical empirical analysis of the structure of time is not refutable because it is true. Any one who studies this material will readily form this conclusion. These numbers are based squarely on objective planetary data, the list of planetary positions used by science for space flight. It presents a basic challenge to scientific orthodoxy, opening a large new field in cyclic empirics. Apply all the tests you like.


Eh? What is the challenge to scientific orthodoxy? You're lining up ducks. No one would refute that there are patterns here. Well, maybe they would if you were wrong. But this is inconsequential. These patterns are meaningless. You are putting meaning into them.

Quote:
We might be able to model a solar system structure that did not exhibit twelve-fold resonance to produce a clock with a base other than 60.


Ours doesn't exhibit a 12 fold resonance. The only correlation is on paper. Is there some large gong sound the 12th time the barycenter cycles? Does someone jump out and yell 'ding'?



The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post:
Robert Tulip
Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:18 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Recent Posts 
CHILDREN'S BOOK "It's Not Always Scary In The Dark"

Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:50 pm

jsteward75

Carrier: the religious meme

Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:47 pm

Interbane

HI, I'm Ronald and I'm a new author.

Tue Sep 30, 2014 11:47 am

argst13

Hello, I am Tony

Tue Sep 30, 2014 11:45 am

argst13

The Ass and the Shit

Tue Sep 30, 2014 11:42 am

Zks

I got my first book review for "Legend of the Mystic Knights"

Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:02 am

war1

Carrier on miracles

Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:31 am

Interbane

Kevin Peter's Book Reviews

Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:26 am

KevinPeterKP

Hi, I'm Mambo

Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:51 am

mambo_banda101

The Halloween Attraction -- 'Hidden Angels'

Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:33 pm

AuthorPage


BookTalk.org Links 
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Info for Authors & Publishers
Featured Book Suggestions
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!
    

Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.

Featured Books

Books by New Authors



Booktalk.org on Facebook 



BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSBOOKSTRANSCRIPTSOLD FORUMSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICY

BOOK FORUMS FOR ALL BOOKS WE HAVE DISCUSSED
Oliver Twist - by Charles DickensSense and Goodness Without God - by Richard CarrierFrankenstein - by Mary ShelleyThe Big Questions - by Simon BlackburnScience Was Born of Christianity - by Stacy TrasancosThe Happiness Hypothesis - by Jonathan HaidtA Game of Thrones - by George R. R. MartinTempesta's Dream - by Vincent LoCocoWhy Nations Fail - by Daron Acemoglu and James RobinsonThe Drowning Girl - Caitlin R. KiernanThe Consolations of the Forest - by Sylvain TessonThe Complete Heretic's Guide to Western Religion: The Mormons - by David FitzgeraldA Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man - by James JoyceThe Divine Comedy - by Dante AlighieriThe Magic of Reality - by Richard DawkinsDubliners - by James JoyceMy Name Is Red - by Orhan PamukThe World Until Yesterday - by Jared DiamondThe Man Who Was Thursday - by by G. K. ChestertonThe Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven PinkerLord Jim by Joseph ConradThe Hobbit by J. R. R. TolkienThe Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas AdamsAtlas Shrugged by Ayn RandThinking, Fast and Slow - by Daniel KahnemanThe Righteous Mind - by Jonathan HaidtWorld War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War by Max BrooksMoby Dick: or, the Whale by Herman MelvilleA Visit from the Goon Squad by Jennifer EganLost Memory of Skin: A Novel by Russell BanksThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. KuhnHobbes: Leviathan by Thomas HobbesThe House of the Spirits - by Isabel AllendeArguably: Essays by Christopher HitchensThe Falls: A Novel (P.S.) by Joyce Carol OatesChrist in Egypt by D.M. MurdockThe Glass Bead Game: A Novel by Hermann HesseA Devil's Chaplain by Richard DawkinsThe Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph CampbellThe Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor DostoyevskyThe Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark TwainThe Moral Landscape by Sam HarrisThe Decameron by Giovanni BoccaccioThe Road by Cormac McCarthyThe Grand Design by Stephen HawkingThe Evolution of God by Robert WrightThe Tin Drum by Gunter GrassGood Omens by Neil GaimanPredictably Irrational by Dan ArielyThe Wind-Up Bird Chronicle: A Novel by Haruki MurakamiALONE: Orphaned on the Ocean by Richard Logan & Tere Duperrault FassbenderDon Quixote by Miguel De CervantesMusicophilia by Oliver SacksDiary of a Madman and Other Stories by Nikolai GogolThe Passion of the Western Mind by Richard TarnasThe Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le GuinThe Genius of the Beast by Howard BloomAlice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll Empire of Illusion by Chris HedgesThe Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner The Extended Phenotype by Richard DawkinsSmoke and Mirrors by Neil GaimanThe Selfish Gene by Richard DawkinsWhen Good Thinking Goes Bad by Todd C. RinioloHouse of Leaves by Mark Z. DanielewskiAmerican Gods: A Novel by Neil GaimanPrimates and Philosophers by Frans de WaalThe Enormous Room by E.E. CummingsThe Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar WildeGod Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher HitchensThe Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco Dreams From My Father by Barack Obama Paradise Lost by John Milton Bad Money by Kevin PhillipsThe Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson BurnettGodless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists by Dan BarkerThe Things They Carried by Tim O'BrienThe Limits of Power by Andrew BacevichLolita by Vladimir NabokovOrlando by Virginia Woolf On Being Certain by Robert A. Burton50 reasons people give for believing in a god by Guy P. HarrisonWalden: Or, Life in the Woods by Henry David ThoreauExile and the Kingdom by Albert CamusOur Inner Ape by Frans de WaalYour Inner Fish by Neil ShubinNo Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthyThe Age of American Unreason by Susan JacobyTen Theories of Human Nature by Leslie Stevenson & David HabermanHeart of Darkness by Joseph ConradThe Stuff of Thought by Stephen PinkerA Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled HosseiniThe Lucifer Effect by Philip ZimbardoResponsibility and Judgment by Hannah ArendtInterventions by Noam ChomskyGodless in America by George A. RickerReligious Expression and the American Constitution by Franklyn S. HaimanDeep Economy by Phil McKibbenThe God Delusion by Richard DawkinsThe Third Chimpanzee by Jared DiamondThe Woman in the Dunes by Abe KoboEvolution vs. Creationism by Eugenie C. ScottThe Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael PollanI, Claudius by Robert GravesBreaking The Spell by Daniel C. DennettA Peace to End All Peace by David FromkinThe Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey NiffeneggerThe End of Faith by Sam HarrisEnder's Game by Orson Scott CardThe Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark HaddonValue and Virtue in a Godless Universe by Erik J. WielenbergThe March by E. L DoctorowThe Ethical Brain by Michael GazzanigaFreethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan JacobyCollapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared DiamondThe Battle for God by Karen ArmstrongThe Future of Life by Edward O. WilsonWhat is Good? by A. C. GraylingCivilization and Its Enemies by Lee HarrisPale Blue Dot by Carl SaganHow We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God by Michael ShermerLooking for Spinoza by Antonio DamasioLies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al FrankenThe Red Queen by Matt RidleyThe Blank Slate by Stephen PinkerUnweaving the Rainbow by Richard DawkinsAtheism: A Reader edited by S.T. JoshiGlobal Brain by Howard BloomThe Lucifer Principle by Howard BloomGuns, Germs and Steel by Jared DiamondThe Demon-Haunted World by Carl SaganBury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee BrownFuture Shock by Alvin Toffler

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOur Amazon.com SalesMassimo Pigliucci Rationally SpeakingOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism BooksFACTS Book Selections

cron
Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2014. All rights reserved.
Website developed by MidnightCoder.ca
Display Pagerank