Sort:  

Maybe, but some of them are research-based. They can be wrong anyway

Just because something is researched doesn't mean its not pseudoscience. Reading old texts isn't the same thing as empirical research that can be quantified and tested. The human mind is an expert at finding patterns in random events (IE. seeing famous faces in complex patterns or making connections that are minimally correlated but that have no causal relationship). If someone reads enough old texts I am sure they could find any sort of information that could relate back to the present and support even the most ridiculous claims. Confirmation bias also plays a huge factor in such things as well. People often point out all the cases that support their claim while simultaneously downplaying or ignoring any contradictory information. There is always a reason why a contradiction should be ignored lol. Just my thoughts on the subject. Nice post :)

There are many thing we really do not know about astrodynamics, and believe me, some of these hoaxes have some elements of realities in them. For someone to have predicted 1/2 occurrence correctly, I think it's a huge plus.

Yes I agree. There is a lot that we do not know.
My limited understanding of astronomy is that the planets and stars tend to be quite predictable when you understand the math. I wouldn't say that predicting an eclipse is a huge accomplishment. Ancient Mayans and Egyptians and Romans were able to predict cosmological phenomenons simply by tracking the stars over time. Given today's astrological technology, information on future eclipses, comets...etc are probably well known by NASA and are probably even published on the internet.

I hope this doesn't come across like I am trying to argue with you because that's not my intention. I am just trying to engage in a discussion lol
:)

Not at all. We learn everyday, and no one is a repository of knowledge

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.21
TRX 0.18
JST 0.032
BTC 88358.62
ETH 3275.22
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.02