Last Word From Moses Siregar

[Guest guest]

I apologize to all for my part in this disruption. It was not my

intention to upset your hermitage. However, i deserve the right to

defend myself, and i still stand by what i have said completely, with

the exception of one comment.

 

In my first mention of the twins article, i wrote:

"While we're on the subject of problematic information, would you

like to discuss the many contradictions and deceptions on your piece

on the twins, on your website?" I sincerely apologize to Narasimha

and all for making this negative accusation. This was rudeness on my

part.

 

However, in my message, 'Satyam and Sivam,' in every case of a

mention of dishonesty, i have only said something to the extent

that "it felt to me like you have been deceptive," and i did not say

this without some evidence. In saying "it felt to me," i am sharing

my honest perception and feeling, while admitting that i might be

wrong. Of course we all make mistakes, myself certainly included. I

have no problem with anyone making mistakes. And where i have

disrespected you, Narasimha, i sincerely apologize to you.

 

Narasimha has written to me:

 

"You could've just asked me 'why did you consider so and so point and

why did you leave so and so point' instead of terming these

as 'contradictions' and using words like 'dishonest' and 'deceptive'

about me."

 

I used the words 'dishonest' and 'deceptive,' because this is exactly

how the twins piece felt to me, and also because this is exactly how

my conversations with you on the statistics felt to me--very

dishonest, as well as very condescending and disrespectful. Since i

do not know whether or not you treat others this same way, people who

might not know enough about astrology, or have enough self-confidence

to defend themselves, i wanted to let you know how i felt so that

hopefully no one else would ever be treated in the way. I am only one

person and my opinion therefore matters very little, but i would not

state such a strong perception if i had not felt it just as strongly.

In our discussion, you seemed convinced from the start, before asking

me, that i had made some errors in my data which i had barely made,

and then made comments like:

 

"This analysis will dramatically strengthen the argument that the

findings of Moses don't mean anything." (the arguments then made were

blatantly inaccurate, using a 46% figure for random distribution,

which i had just corrected in the previous message)

 

"Anyway, I hope you realize what you consider 'a very important point'

is no point at all." (this still has yet to be determined, and

additionally, i was always clear to say that this only 'may be' a

very important point)

 

"Bottomline: Your findings don't have any significance. Sorry

friend ..." (i had admitted even before our first comments to each

other, that that my findings were not yet statistically significant)

 

"The whole test is ill-conceived." (no, it isn't, it's simply the

first stage in what would have to be a series of tests)

 

"If a combination is found in 46% of ALL people and you find it

satisfied in 49% of astrologers, there is no correlation between the

combination and being an astrologer. Period." (in fact the figures

should have been 30.5% to 49.0%, as i had just clearly written in my

previous message, which was not mentioned)

 

"My point is that presenting something without doing the kind

of sanity checks that I demonstrated serves no purpose." (and yet i

admitted that the results were very fresh, and not yet statistically

significant, or rigorously tested. And how about serving the purpose

of seeing if there might be something worth further investigating?)

 

I felt so much condescending attitude from these comments, and others

by Narasimha.

 

When you ask why i used the word 'contradictions,' Narasimha, i think

you have asked a very reasonable question. Probably if you had

treated me with fundamental respect, i would not have used the

word, 'contradictions' when i described your twins article. Yet use

of the word 'contradiction' is not a personal attack, as these were

logical, factual points that can be refuted in a logical way.

Narasimha, you, after all, are a very vocal and strong advocate of

logical, critical thinking in astrology. The things that i pointed

out seem to me to be contradictions, and since the purpose of the

twins article is to convince western astrologers of some of the power

of vedic astrology (which is how it is presented on the website), i

wanted to encourage you to do better, as you were kind enough to do

for me. If my points were not contradictions, they could be logically

refuted. I simply called what i saw as a spade a spade, and what i

saw as a contradiction a contradiction. This is not a personal

attack, but a logical argument. Are those here not allowed to bring

up contradictions? Isn't this a hermitage for critical thinking?

 

I am perfectly willing to let this topic go, but when someone is

misrepresented and disrespected, you cannot expect them to keep their

mouth shut. That would be oppression and censorship. If i feel i am

misrepresented again, i will certainly again speak up for myself.

 

Since i do not wish to upset your list further, i will leave this

group when this dialogue is finished. Thanks again to Shiv Chadha for

answering my original question, to Vijay for his comments, and to

Narasimha for his very valuable insight. I wish you all infinite

prosperity and blessings in your studies with one another here.

 

much love and aloha and best wishes to all,

moses