Marrena's Astrology Test

[Jackalgirl]

I'll believe that astrology has some merit when it demonstrates that it has some merit. Going through a large statistical data and finding stuff that matches your expectations is not really noteworthy.

However, if you -- or any other astrologer -- were able to pass a simple protocol, that would certainly wake me up (for whatever that's worth):

An astrologer develops readings (for want of a better term) for 10 people based on mutually-agreed data (e.g., date, lat & long of birth, time of birth, etc), numbered 1-10. Each reading will simply describe the person's personality, tendencies, and traits -- there will be no explanations, but simply descriptions (e.g., "you are sensitive and love puppies" vs. "because your Thoobie is in Squabus, you are sensitive and love puppies").

Each person for whom a reading was created will receive all ten readings and will select the one that he/she thinks is his/hers, in isolation from everyone else who got readings done. If three out of ten persons correctly select their own reading, the test is a success.

Split from this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119771). Please try to keep this thread focused on testing and not a general discussion on astrology.

[Marrena]

I was saying in the future, predictively. That would be noteworthy but it would also be a pain in the ass. I don't have a lot of free time on my hands--although it sounds like astroman does! :)

Sure I will try the ten-person test. I need birth date, exact birth time and birth city. *cracks knuckles* It would be helpful if the people are older than thirty--young people are blank slates somewhat.

[rsaavedra]

I think the testing shouldn't involve Astrologers or people choosing charts made by astrologers. If the thing we want to test is Astrology itself, that's not the way to go.

How about testing some of the core assumptions of Astrology. For instance, some of the planetary "transits" and their alleged influences.

Astrologers claim that some planetary "transits" do facilitate the occurrence of physical accidents (e.g. injuries involved), for instance a transit of Saturn opposed your natal Mars. This corresponds to the current planet Saturn passing on the sky over a position opposed to (= at 180º from) where Mars was in your natal chart. In fact, any Saturn-Natal Mars transits could be checked. The Saturn-conjunction-Natal Mars transit allegedly coincide not just with accidents, but in particular with bone injuries.

If such transits truly makes accidents more prone to happen, that could be verified with records from traumatology or ER departments in hospitals.

Check the birthcharts of all patients that were registered in that or those hospitals as having some fracture or cut related traumas, let's say any day during the year 2000. Compute the incidence or closeness of any Saturn--natal Mars transit for all those patients over that whole year.

Then choose any other set of people that are known to not have had any record of accidents/injuries that same year 2000. See if the incidence/closeness of Saturn--natal Mars for this other group is in any way significantly lower, or in any case different than the other group's. If it is about the same, then the observed data would not support any correlation between said transit and any injuries/accidents (weaking the case of Astrology, as far as that transit goes.)

Several other transits could be verified similarly, depending on their alleged influence.

[Marrena]

That wouldn't work because there are a whole bunch of accident-causing transits, for example Mars squaring Uranus (let the jokes begin). It would be a nightmare sorting all that out.

[rsaavedra]

That wouldn't work because there are a whole bunch of accident-causing transits
That doesn't matter. You are testing one of the transits that allegedly causes accidents. If there was an actual causal relationship between any specific transit and accidents, the statistics of an ER department vs. a control group would eventually show it, no matter how many other transits did cause accidents too.

[Marrena]

What if the control group happened to have lots of accident-causing transits?

This would be even more of a pain in the ass to isolate than the sports thing.

[In My Spare Time]

I was saying in the future, predictively. That would be noteworthy but it would also be a pain in the ass. I don't have a lot of free time on my hands--although it sounds like astroman does! :)

Sure I will try the ten-person test. I need birth date, exact birth time and birth city. *cracks knuckles* It would be helpful if the people are older than thirty--young people are blank slates somewhat.

Define exact birth time. Do you claim an out if someone's off by a minute? What defines birth? Head out? Feet out? Chord cut? How about a c-section?

[rsaavedra]

What if the control group happened to have lots of accident-causing transits?
You did read that I suggest choosing for the control group people that didn't have accidents the same year we are checking the ER group full of accidents.

If the control group had many other accident-causing transits for that same year, then that would be even worse for Astrology. Precisely because they didn't have accidents that year, in spite of their fateful transits. :P

If you meant the ER group having many other accident-causing transits, that shouldn't matter with a properly carried out study and a large enough sample. The Saturn-Mars transit, if truly causing accidents, should show up more strongly correlated in the statistics among people with accidents, compared to people without accidents.

[Piggy]

Sure I will try the ten-person test. I need birth date, exact birth time and birth city. *cracks knuckles* It would be helpful if the people are older than thirty--young people are blank slates somewhat.

That would be me. Consider myself volunteered.

[Jackalgirl]

Okay, I'll bite. Let's see. If you would like to participate (and are over 30), PM me your birth date, time, and birth location.

I will generate a .txt list with this information linked to the Forum names of the participants. I ask that anyone participating please be honest and truthful (no fake dates/times/locs).

I will then PM the contents, minus the names, to Marrena for her to work on.

--=-=-
Edited to add: heck, I'll just post them here, like we did with the test for Astroman.
-=-=-=-

Marrena, when you are done, we'll arrange (via PM) for you to email the files to me. I will post the ten results on my web site and give you a chance to check them for accuracy before I post the URL here. Each person will go to that web site and attempt to select his or her reading and will PM me with his or her selection.*

When everyone is done, I will post a list of the people's selections, the contents of the original .txt file, and a list of what reading corresponds with what birthdate. Three out of 10 matches will constitute a success.**

Caveats: the readings must contain ONLY descriptions of people's personalities, tendancies, or traits. Specific instances in their lives may be referenced by age (e.g., "when you were 14, you lost a pet and it has haunted your life ever since"), but there should be no reference to their current ages (e.g., "now that you are 32..." or "four years ago, when you were 28..."). Likewise, there should be no reference to birth date or time or location (e.g., "because you were born in Detroit...") The idea is to remove the possibility that a person can select the correct reading because of specific references to the information that will be provided.

*Please PM me with your selections rather than posting them here. That way, other people's selections will not influence your choice.

**I am barely functional when it comes to probabilities. I calculate that the chances of three out of ten people correctly choosing their own readings is 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 -- that is, one in a thousand. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. Marrena, I'm shooting for 1/1000 odds, so please understand that my standard for success might change (it might not be 3 out of 10, but rather something else, if my math is wrong, which it might be).

Edited to add: sorry for all the editing. I think I'm done. I hope I am. ; )

[Coveredinbeeees]

I calculate that the chances of three out of ten people correctly choosing their own readings is 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 -- that is, one in a thousand. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. Marrena, I'm shooting for 1/1000 odds, so please understand that my standard for success might change (it might not be 3 out of 10, but rather something else, if my math is wrong, which it might be).

The odds of exactly 3 people picking their own reading by chance alone is 0.057 or 5.7%

The odds of at least 3 people picking their own reading by chance alone is 0.070 or 7.0%

It is not quite so simple as (1/10)3 because you have to take into account the chances of the other 7 people guessing wrongly in the case of exactly 3 folk picking right and the chances of 4 right 6 wrong, 5 right 5 wrong etc in the case of at least 3 people guessing correctly. A binomial expansion with n=10 and P=0.1 does the trick though.

If you are looking for 1/1000 odds you'll want to set the target as at least 5 or 6 out of 10.

The odds of at least 5 people picking their own reading by chance alone is 0.0016 or 0.16%. That's 1 in 630.

The odds of at least 6 people picking their own reading by chance alone is 0.00014 or 0.014% That's 1 in 7100.

Doesn't this deserve it's own thread?

[AntiTelharsic]

Just wanted to confirm beeees's calculations and say that if I were going to tentatively accept the astrological claims I'd rather not be wrong 7% of the time. Let's be at least 99% certain and hence require 5/10 successes. Surely if there's anything to this then expecting it to work half the time isn't too much to ask.

[Jackalgirl]

Howdy!

Okay, as I noted, my math is bad. So we need to adjust the success rate to 5 out of 10. Is that okay, Marrena? Also, In My Spare Time's questions are good ones -- let me know what you define as "birth" and how far off a person can be on their time. If it has to be absolutely exact, I'm betting that's going to kill the test.

In the meantime, though, if the rest of you are participating, please PM me with as exact information as you can -- try to give me the birth time off of your birth certificate. Marrena said "city", so I am presuming that this means I don't have to have the exact lat & long of, say, the room in the hospital where you were born.

[Marrena]

Thinking it over, I'd like to add one more thing. I'd like the gender of the participant too, because that can affect the reading. So either restrict it to just men, or I will do twenty readings, ten men, ten women and we can go for ten right.

Five right with the ten readings is fine with me.

Although why on a separate website? Why not here?

[Pixel42]

Thinking it over, I'd like to add one more thing. I'd like the gender of the participant too, because that can affect the reading. So either restrict it to just men, or I will do twenty readings, ten men, ten women and we can go for ten right.
As long as you don't mention the person's gender in the reading (i.e. use 'you' instead of 'he' or 'she') ten will still be enough.

Although why on a separate website? Why not here?
The suggestion was a seperate thread, not a seperate website. This thread was started by astroman and, who knows, he might come back one day and do this test himself. It's also aready quite long. So a seperate thread for you sounds like a good idea to me.

[Marrena]

I will post the ten results on my web site and give you a chance to check them for accuracy before I post the URL here. Each person will go to that web site and attempt to select his or her reading and will PM me with his or her selection.

I'd prefer a new thread here, like Pixel suggested.

It's hard to keep gender bias out of language. Why not restrict the ten to men over thirty? Or women over thirty? (I assume there are more men than women at this board but I may be wrong).

[Pixel42]

I'd prefer a new thread here, like Pixel suggested.
Jackalgirl already thought twice about the idea you quoted: "Edited to add: heck, I'll just post them here, like we did with the test for Astroman". So there is currently no suggestion to use a seperate website, just a suggestion to start a new thread.

It's hard to keep gender bias out of language. Why not restrict the ten to men over thirty? Or women over thirty? (I assume there are more men than women at this board but I may be wrong).
There were only 14 volunteers for the astroman experiment, one of whom dropped out. Restrictions on both age and gender will probably reduce the number of volunteers to less than ten.

[Marrena]

Okay--if I can keep one, can I keep age?

[Marrena]

By the way, if anyone else volunteers, don't post like Piggy that you will do it. I could do a search on his posts to find out more about him.

[Jackalgirl]

Thinking it over, I'd like to add one more thing. I'd like the gender of the participant too, because that can affect the reading. So either restrict it to just men, or I will do twenty readings, ten men, ten women and we can go for ten right.

Five right with the ten readings is fine with me.

Although why on a separate website? Why not here?

Just for ease of not cluttering up the Forum and to ensure that everyone in the test group gets all 10 at one time (rather than one at a time). But if you prefer to post them here, that's cool too, as long as there isn't a significant delay between the individual posts (or, if they're short, just put them all into one message). I'd have no problem with it, especially since it would keep everything together: the discussion and negotiation, the readings, and the test results.

As for genders: will your readings be gender-neutral? Or will you want (or need) to reference gender-specific issues? (Obviously, "you have prostate cancer" or "when you went into menopause, you suffered deep depression" would clue the reader in on the gender of the readee.) As Pixel42 points out, it might be hard to find 20 volunteers over 30 -- but if you are willing to be patient, I am too. : )

Could you also clarify on the degree of exactitude you need regarding people's birth times and locations? I assume that, location-wise, you just need the city. But for time, how do you define when a person is born? And how exact does the time need to be?

[Pixel42]

Okay--if I can keep one, can I keep age?
Do you still want to know the subjects gender? You can have that information, as long as you ensure you don't mention it in your readings.

[Marrena]

I'd like the gender, although I will try very hard in the readings to be gender-neutral. It does impact some of the planets, for example Mars in a woman can signify what she finds superficially attractive in a man, but Mars in a man is more defining of his masculinity. Likewise for Venus.

I will try to post them all at once here.

I just need the city and the time to the minute. A five-minute margin of error is generally fine, but after that the reading is less useful.

[Jackalgirl]

I'd like the gender, although I will try very hard in the readings to be gender-neutral. It does impact some of the planets, for example Mars in a woman can signify what she finds superficially attractive in a man, but Mars in a man is more defining of his masculinity. Likewise for Venus.

Well, if you leave all of the explanations out of the readings (i.e, "your attraction to sexual partners is largely based on superficial factors" vs. "Because you are a woman and have Mars in yaddity haddity, your attraction to sexual partners is largely based..."), it should be okay. On the other hand, if you have to tell a male "readee" that he is a particularly masculine man, then we need two separate groups.



I will try to post them all at once here.

Works for me! I'd just ask all of the participants to refrain from responding until all 10 have been posted.


I just need the city and the time to the minute. A five-minute margin of error is generally fine, but after that the reading is less useful.

Roger that. I'll make sure that you get info from people who are sure of their birth date within a 5-minute margin at the very least, with to-the-minute being preferable.

[Marrena]

I can be consciously gender-neutral but there might be subconscious gender cues in my language--I'm just saying.

[In My Spare Time]

I'd like the gender, although I will try very hard in the readings to be gender-neutral. It does impact some of the planets, for example Mars in a woman can signify what she finds superficially attractive in a man, but Mars in a man is more defining of his masculinity. Likewise for Venus.

I will try to post them all at once here.

I just need the city and the time to the minute. A five-minute margin of error is generally fine, but after that the reading is less useful.

and if it has to be to the minute, what EXACTLY defines birth?

[Marrena]

I'll go with what the hospital defines as birth. Most birth certificates record birth time for tax reasons.

[AndyD]

Is there a way to ensure Marrena doesn't know who's taking part? For example, is there a way to ensure there's no off-site collusion between Marrena and other people who might take part?

I realise it's not a formal test and some of the participants have history but it doesn't hurt to ask. Also, what if you're not born on a meridian? After all, there's almost half an hour from the east to west borders of Western Australia and I think South Australia's official time is still half an hour off the UTC+9 that corresponds with its meridain.

Two West Aussies born at exactly the same WST (UTC+8) will be half an hour apart in real space time which kinda blows the "five minute margin of error" - and then there's daylight saving which occurs randomly in this state according to governments' whims.

I'm sure the random locations of modern cities and widely-spaced time meridians must bugger up a 5000 year old time-based system somewhat so surely a precise longitudinal figure is required to make the reading accurate?

[Delvo]

Are you saying Australia uses local times based on the local perception of the sun (zenith = noon), rather than dividing the country into time zones? I don't get what you're saying, perhaps because the only time zones I'm familiar with make the time the same at any given moment throughout the whole zone, so births recorded with the same numerical time in the same zone would actually be simultaneous.

[ddt]

I realise it's not a formal test and some of the participants have history but it doesn't hurt to ask. Also, what if you're not born on a meridian? After all, there's almost half an hour from the east to west borders of Western Australia and I think South Australia's official time is still half an hour off the UTC+9 that corresponds with its meridain.

Two West Aussies born at exactly the same WST (UTC+8) will be half an hour apart in real space time which kinda blows the "five minute margin of error" - and then there's daylight saving which occurs randomly in this state according to governments' whims.
That all can be accounted for. The city gives an exact (*) location where the birth took place. The local time used can be re-calculated to GMT from the timezone in use, or to whatever timeframe the astrologer needs (note that solar timeframes and sidereal timeframes give different results). I guess Marrena has software at his/her disposal to account for all that. For the location of the city: Google maps :).

(*) Big cities can indeed give inexact locations. But name me one big city that's stretched out more than 1 degree, which would be roughly the same inaccuracy as 5 minutes difference in birth time?

[In My Spare Time]

Delvo-
I think what Andy's saying is that, with reference to the stars/planets babys born at the same time half a time zone away will be misaligned astrologically.
I think including the birth city is supposed to compensate for that.
Interesting that whatever the hospital comes up with for birth time is good enough but has to be within 5 minutes. My birth certificate has no time listing at all. My sister's has the hour and a dash.

[AndyD]

Are you saying Australia uses local times based on the local perception of the sun

No, I'm saying the states are damned wide there's half an hour in real time from border to border but the whole state uses a single time zone. Plus, SA, as far as I know, has an official time which is UTC+9.5 when it should, according to longitude, be UTC+9.0 so birth certificate times will be half an hour out (in relation to the sun and stars.)

But the others may have addressed this. I don't especially care since I have my views on where the challenge will end up based on the OP but if people are going to do it, it would be nice to know there's a point.

In the end, we have a claimed believer challenging known skeptics so if the readings fail, it will be the skeptics' faults for "intentionally choosing the wrong readings" just to make a point. But hey, what do I know? :)

[Jackalgirl]

Just as a note for people who'd like to participate:

Please make sure you give me as exact a time of birth as you can. If it's an approximation, please let me know that -- and tell me, if you can, what the margin of error is. If you happened to have been born /exactly/ at the top or bottom of the hour, or on a 5-minute interval, please let me know. Thanks!

[Marrena]

There has to be a certain amount of trust here. I will trust that people will pick the most accurate reading, and you have to trust me that I don't know anybody here.

I've got an alt account, zaneblue, that I used to make a couple posts about my firsthand experience with domestic abuse, because at that point I felt ashamed of it. But nothing like going on national television conversationally talking about one's hooha and having spontaneous orgasms to obliterate that sort of feeling.

I wasn't intending at all to come here and do the astrology thing, I did it one of the other times I was here to resounding defeat. I've gotten a little better at it since, but I was just stung by astroman's attempt. If you are going to go down, better to go down with good technique! :D

[In My Spare Time]

Best of luck Marrena. Hope I don't have to make a fail kitten for you too.

It is refreshing that you've been so willing to use an easy format for the test. I just hope we have enough people willing and able to meet your restrictions.

Cheers,
IMST

[Madalch]

...nothing like going on national television conversationally talking about one's hooha and having spontaneous orgasms ...If you are going to go down, better to go down with good technique! :D
Sorry- that just begged for quote mining.

[Jackalgirl]

BTW, a couple of notes:

o I've got four females so far with the required birth time exactitude.
o I've got three males with the required birth time exactitude.
o I'm trying to confirm birth time for five males and one female
o I'm trying to confirm birth time and gender for two persons

So, in short, I need more volunteers! Please let me know your:

o Gender
o Birth Date
o Birth Time (in local time to the minute -- if you were born on a 5-minute mark or at the top/bottom of the hour, please confirm that your birth time is exact)
o Birth location (city, township, etc. I don't need the Lat & Long unless you were born in a very rural area)

Please don't post that you've PMed me. (Nobody has, as far as I know, but keep your participation secret).

Marrena, here's my (new) understanding of how things will go:

I am looking for 10 volunteers of each gender and when I have complete lists of which I am sure in terms of their accuracy (in particular, the birth minute), I will PM them to you in a random order, and I will PM the participants to let them know that they were in the final cut.

You'll do your readings and post the results here in two sets, one for males, one for females, numbered 1-10 each, in the order I gave you. You won't include any information that will provide date-related or age-related clues (e.g., "now that you're thirty..." "Two years ago, when you were 28...." "As a Virgo, you..."), but rather the readings will simply describe the personality traits and tendencies of the participant in question. Specifics are allowed as long as they can't be used to calculate a birth day or birth year (e.g., "when you were 14, you experienced a terrible loss" is okay; "Twelve years ago, when you were 14, you experienced a terrible loss" is not).

The participants will wait until all 10 readings have been completed. Then they will PM me with the number of the reading they think is theirs. When all twenty participants have selected their readings, I will post the results in the same format as was done for Astroman's test -- that is, I will refer to people only as "participant #1", "participant #2", etc. I will provide the number of the reading that corresponds to their birth date, and the number they chose. Five out of 10 for a single set would constitute success in that set -- but could someone help me out? What are the approximately 1:1000 odds of being accurate for /both sets/?

[rsaavedra]

I'd like to mention that people volunteering in this test should not be in any way learned about astrological aspects. In particular, they shouldn't know their own birthchart or how things would be interpreted from it according to traditional astrology or let's say maybe Hindu astrology.

For instance, I don't volunteer here because I do have some knowledge of astrological interpretation. I know where planets fall in what houses and constellations in my birthchart, and what planetary aspects there are in it, and more or less what each of those things mean in traditional astrology, because I've been given detailed astrological interpretations of my birthchart before. (And I've read some books on mythology and astrology myself.)

So if I participated, and then I read the general interpretation of what an astrologer would tend to say given let's say my sun sign, lunar sign, and ascendant, and some of the more prominent aspects in my chart, then I think I'd be able to pick my reading among the ten possibly rather accurately. But that wouldn't mean astrology works, or that the reading necessarily matches me better than the other readings. It just means that I'm biased, and that this astrologer and the original one who read my chart before do exhibit some degree of consistency with respect to the method and language used to interpret and then communicate the interpretation of my birthchart.

[AntiTelharsic]

What are the approximately 1:1000 odds of being accurate for /both sets/?

For it to be at least as difficult as 1 in 1000, 4 or more in each of two sets of 10 will suffice. The challenger was comfortable with needing to get half right in a single trial, however, so why not stick with 5 or more right in each set? The odds against that are 374107 to 1.

[Coveredinbeeees]

Five out of 10 for a single set would constitute success in that set -- but could someone help me out? What are the approximately 1:1000 odds of being accurate for /both sets/?

There are two ways you could consider this.

1. If we lump the results of both tests together but it is clear to all participants which readings are for men and which are for women then the odds of at least 8 of the 20 participants picking the correct reading by chance alone are 0.00036 or 0.036%. That's 1 in 2800.

This method does not differentiate between [4 out of 10 males + 4 out of 10 females] picking the correct reading and [1 out of 10 males + 7 out of 10 females] picking the correct reading.

2. Considering each gender as a separate test, the chances of at least 4 out of 10 males and at least 4 out of 10 females picking the correct reading by chance alone is 0.00035 or 0.035% which is 1 in 2900.

[Coveredinbeeees]

Ooops,

I need to stop going away for a cup of tea mid post. Consider the above a confirmation of Anti-Telharsic's calculations.

[Loss Leader]

I'll go with what the hospital defines as birth. Most birth certificates record birth time for tax reasons.



Well, I don't know how good you are at astrology but you're a pretty bad accountant. There is no tax implication for a person's birth time. In fact, all babies are assumed to be born on January 1 for tax purposes. I have a friend whose child was born on December 30 and he got to take her as a dependant for the entire year.


Also: Why is Marrena posting her readings directly to this board? They should be emailed to JG first so that she can check that they don't contain age/gender/location clues. Then JG should post them here (or on her website where the volunteers can go look at them). None of that affects Marrena at all.

[Malerin]

Are you doing a full natal chart with all the houses, transits, squares, oppositions, nodes, midpoints, etc? I see some astrologers are now including the asteroids Ceres and Juno. What book are you using? I would volunteer, but my wife already did mine years ago. For what it's worth, a lot of it was spot on, but there's always the "Cold Reading" factor.

I know most of you laugh at the idea of "professional astrologer", but there ARE people who spend decades doing complex natal charts and sorting out all the various influences. I don't know if Marrena is one of those, but to put astrology to the test, you should really get someone who does it for a living.

[AntiTelharsic]

I know most of you laugh at the idea of "professional astrologer"

I don't. If I were unprincipled enough I'd become one myself.

I don't know if Marrena is one of those, but to put astrology to the test, you should really get someone who does it for a living

I think we're just putting Marrena to the test -- astrology itself will hardly stand or fall on the outcome of this (relatively) informal challenge :)

[Marrena]

Well, I don't know how good you are at astrology but you're a pretty bad accountant. There is no tax implication for a person's birth time. In fact, all babies are assumed to be born on January 1 for tax purposes. I have a friend whose child was born on December 30 and he got to take her as a dependant for the entire year.


Also: Why is Marrena posting her readings directly to this board? They should be emailed to JG first so that she can check that they don't contain age/gender/location clues. Then JG should post them here (or on her website where the volunteers can go look at them). None of that affects Marrena at all.

What if your friend's child was born on December 31st at 11:59 pm? Or maybe January 1st at 12:01 am. That's why hospitals always check birthtime. All the other days of the year it has no tax purpose, but that one evening, as you point out, it's got a pretty large tax purpose.

I'm pretty sure I'm a good enough astrologer to be able to charge for it, but I've got an Ivy League math degree, I'm a pretty good programmer and then there's this book thing. There are easier ways to make money. :goodwitch I'm an enthusiastic amateur.

I'm happy to pm them to Jackalgirl first, but I'd prefer to have her post them here.

[Marrena]

Are you doing a full natal chart with all the houses, transits, squares, oppositions, nodes, midpoints, etc? I see some astrologers are now including the asteroids Ceres and Juno. What book are you using? I would volunteer, but my wife already did mine years ago. For what it's worth, a lot of it was spot on, but there's always the "Cold Reading" factor.


I'm going to look at the angles, nodes and the planets (and asteroid): Mars Venus Mercury Moon, Sun, Ceres, Eris, Pluto/Charon, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Chiron.

Clearly some closet astrologers on the IAU since now the zodiac is complete. We are living in interesting astrological times--the rulership is one-to-one and the Age of Aquarius has started. Also interesting to see people with prominent Eris in their charts.

But anyhow, don't want to derail into general shoptalk!

[Piggy]

What if your friend's child was born on December 31st at 11:59 pm? Or maybe January 1st at 12:01 am. That's why hospitals always check birthtime. All the other days of the year it has no tax purpose, but that one evening, as you point out, it's got a pretty large tax purpose.

No, it doesn't, because in the former case they list December 31 on the certificate, and in the latter case they list January 1 on the certificate. There's nothing special about this case which requires a time stamp.

[Loss Leader]

Most birth certificates record birth time for tax reasons.
What if your friend's child was born on December 31st at 11:59 pm? Or maybe January 1st at 12:01 am. That's why hospitals always check birthtime. All the other days of the year it has no tax purpose, but that one evening, as you point out, it's got a pretty large tax purpose.


So most birth certificates list birth time for tax reasons but there are only two days a year when those birth times matter?

Sorry, if a child is born on December 31, all the birth certificate needs to say is December 31. Same for January 1. Hospitals all over the country aren't recording birth times 265 days a year because of a confusing two minute window that happens once a year.

If you can't recognize and admit that you are just plain wrong about an area in which you have no expertise, I'm a little worried that you'll never be able to recognize if you fail this astrology test.

[rsaavedra]

The odds of exactly 3 people picking their own reading by chance alone is 0.057 or 5.7%

The odds of at least 3 people picking their own reading by chance alone is 0.070 or 7.0%

It is not quite so simple as (1/10)3 because you have to take into account the chances of the other 7 people guessing wrongly in the case of exactly 3 folk picking right and the chances of 4 right 6 wrong, 5 right 5 wrong etc in the case of at least 3 people guessing correctly. A binomial expansion with n=10 and P=0.1 does the trick though.

If you are looking for 1/1000 odds you'll want to set the target as at least 5 or 6 out of 10.

The odds of at least 5 people picking their own reading by chance alone is 0.0016 or 0.16%. That's 1 in 630.

The odds of at least 6 people picking their own reading by chance alone is 0.00014 or 0.014% That's 1 in 7100.

Doesn't this deserve it's own thread?
Maybe so.

We have 10 people and 10 interpretations. The total possible number of assignments between both sets (total # of possible associations between the two sets) is 10 to the power of 10 == 1 followed by 10 zeros. (Needless to say, please correct me if I'm wrong)

Of all of those, there is just one, and only one assignment, that would associate the correct interpretation for all 10 people.

But how many are completely incorrect associations, meaning, not even one person picked the right interpretation?

That is an interesting combinatorial question.

[AntiTelharsic]

But how many are completely incorrect associations, meaning, not even one person picked the right interpretation?

The probability of at least one person picking the right interpretation is about 65%, so the probability that none do is about 35%.

[rsaavedra]

The probability of at least one person picking the right interpretation is about 65%, so the probability that none do is about 35%.
How about removing the "about" part? ;)

What's the exact number for 10 people and interpretations, or actually, for N people and interpretations?

Correcting, well actually removing my smaller examples. Definitely this might deserve its own thread.

[AntiTelharsic]

With N people there are (N-1) ways each person can choose incorrectly, so the number of ways nobody gets it right is equal to (N-1)^N. Where N = 10 that's equal to 9^10, or 3486784401.

[rsaavedra]

Correct Anti! Thinking of the binomial distribution somewhat helps compute that directly.

PS. For the sake of math entertainment, I'd like to consider a slight variation.

Imagine removing an interpretation from the choices as soon as one person selects that one as his/her potential interpretation. So that people who haven't yet selected their own interpretation have to choose among the remaining ones, not the whole set of 10 interpretations. Therefore, no two people would be able to pick the same interpretation. In combinatorial terms this corresponds to selection with removal. (Doesn't make much sense for our astrological people-to-interpretation mapping to adopt this scheme, but makes for an interesting variation of the analysis.)

The total number of possible associations would now much smaller than 10^10; it would be factorial of 10. (And mathematically speaking, all possible associations between people and interpretations under these conditions are now necessarily bijections.) Computing the exact number of all possible completely incorrect associations for N people and interpretations would be different (and I think harder) now.

[Coveredinbeeees]

How about removing the "about" part? ;)

What's the exact number for 10 people and interpretations, or actually, for N people and interpretations?

Correcting, well actually removing my smaller examples. Definitely this might deserve its own thread.

The solution is to be found in a Binomial Distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution)

For the case where 10 people are randomly trying to pick their own chart out of a selection of 10 you simply set n=10, p=0.1. You can then find the odds of any result.

For example, to find the odds of noone picking their own chart (by chance alone) you would set k=0 and obtain the result given by Anti-Telharsic above.

If you wanted to find the odds of 8 or more people choosing their own chart (by chance alone) you would sum the probabilities for k=8, k=9 and k=10.

If you don't fancy doing the arithmetic you could always use this (http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~west/applets/binomialdemo.html) handy dandy Java app.

I'm not sure that this warrants a thread of it's own so much as a little bit of statistics reading. I think it is useful for anyone involved to be able to double check the numbers for themselves. I certainly prefer to have someone double checking my work as my statistics are a bit rusty.

In all of the above I have been considering the odds of success by chance alone.

[Coveredinbeeees]

I see you posted while I was writing. i fear I must revise my statement above.

I had been under the impression that you did not actually understand how we were calculating the odds. Clearly you do. If it is simply a discussion of interesting statistical analysis problems that you are after then a separate thread would be best.

[AntiTelharsic]

Correct Anti!

Oh, I thought I was helping you understand something related to the topic, but I guess you already knew the answer. If we're just doing puzzles here, count me out.

[rsaavedra]

Yes I did, I was just posing puzzles for our collective enjoyment :) The variation problem I'm still spending some time on though.

Sorry yes the intention was just puzzle solving. I knew it would be better in a separate thread, apologies for the derailing.

[Pixel42]

So most birth certificates list birth time
UK birth certificates do not list birth time. Mine doesn't, and a check of official websites confirms it is not on the list of information officially recorded.

[Professor Yaffle]

UK birth certificates do not list birth time. Mine doesn't, and a check of official websites confirms it is not on the list of information officially recorded.

However, time of birth is usually recorded in a baby's "red book" these days. So I don't know my own exact time of birth, but I do know it for my two sons.

[Jackalgirl]

I'd be more than willing to receive Marrena's readings and double-check them for "clues"; in fact, that was my intention when I suggested posting them on my website. I'd be happy to receive them via PM (or even email). Alternately, we could get another (smarter) person to handle the "clue-checking", and I'll just handle managing the participants' information. Alternately alternately, we could trust Marrena to post readings that are free of clues...as long as she understands that the test is disqualified (and aborted) by a reading with a "clue" left in mistakenly.

[Professor Yaffle]

Apparently, this website can calculate your exact birth time if you supply the dates of your major life events...

http://birthtime.info/index.htm

[Marrena]

So most birth certificates list birth time for tax reasons but there are only two days a year when those birth times matter?

Sorry, if a child is born on December 31, all the birth certificate needs to say is December 31. Same for January 1. Hospitals all over the country aren't recording birth times 265 days a year because of a confusing two minute window that happens once a year.

If you can't recognize and admit that you are just plain wrong about an area in which you have no expertise, I'm a little worried that you'll never be able to recognize if you fail this astrology test.

You guys are a little strange here. Yes of course, whether the birth time appears on the birth certificate is immaterial for tax purposes--my point was that at one time of the year the time of birth is financially important, and that's why hospitals pay attention to the birth time at all. My gist is that hospitals pay attention to birth time because of tax implications and that's why I am comfortable using birth time listed on the birth certificate.

Unless you think there's some other arcane reason hospitals take the trouble to record birth time--as you say I am not an expert in hospital administration

[Jackalgirl]

Okay, folks, I've got 10 males. I need four more females to participate, though. Again, we need people who have a relatively (within 5 minutes) idea of their birth dates, and who are over 30. Thanks!

[devnull]

Okay, folks, I've got 10 males. I need four more females to participate, though.

Just what type of video are you making!?!??!?!??!?!?!

[Marrena]

Okay, folks, I've got 10 males. I need four more females to participate, though. Again, we need people who have a relatively (within 5 minutes) idea of their birth dates, and who are over 30. Thanks!

Go ahead and post or PM me the male data. It's going to take me a while to do all of these!

[Loss Leader]

.my point was that at one time of the year the time of birth is financially important, and that's why hospitals pay attention to the birth time at all. My gist is that hospitals pay attention to birth time because of tax implications and that's why I am comfortable using birth time listed on the birth certificate.


You are wrong. The time of birth is never financially important. The time of birth never has tax implications. Only they year of birth has tax implications. Thus, hospitals and the vital records department of your local municipality pay ver, very close attention to the year of birth.

Hospitals do not pay attention to birth time because of tax implications. They do not. You are wrong.

Can you admit this?



Unless you think there's some other arcane reason hospitals take the trouble to record birth time--as you say I am not an expert in hospital administration


Birth time is noted for two reasons: 1) because it is a medically significant fact that gives doctors important information about the development of the baby; and 2) because parents like to know.

[Marrena]

Are you mentally feeble or something? I mean, it takes all kinds, nothing wrong with being illogical, it's just surprising to find someone like that here. Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well.

I mean, if the year is important for tax purposes then obviously time of day is important for tax purposes since time of day determines when one year ends and another year starts. For example:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,919254,00.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071124181043AAugRi1

And if you are right that the primary reason hospitals record birth time is for some medical reason, then even more reason to trust their birth time record. I would assume that would give them more incentive than financial reasons to get the time right.

[Marrena]

Here is the reason why hospitals note birth time

When is the Apgar scoring done?

The Apgar score is done routinely 60 seconds after the birth of the infant and then is repeated five minutes after birth.

In the event of a difficult resuscitation, the Apgar score may be done again at 10, 15, and 20 minutes.

http://www.medicinenet.com/apgar_score/page2.htm

But I'm also right about the tax thing, and as for the financial importance of birth time, unfortunately there's another reason why birth time is important--insurance

Here we go, official documentation.

This item documents the exact time of birth for various legal uses, such as the order of birth in plural deliveries. When the birth occurs around midnight, the exact hour and minute may affect the date of birth. For births occurring at the end of the year, the hour and minute affect not only the day but also the year of birth, a factor in establishing dependency for incometax purposes

from government instructions for filling out an Oregon birth certificate. So at least in Oregon I'm right! :p

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/chs/registration/docs/CLBInstrux.pdf

[Loss Leader]

Here is the reason why hospitals note birth time


Yes, you give two good reason to note birth times: medical significance and insurance.

However, you still are insisting that there is some kind of tax reason:

But I'm also right about the tax thing


No, you are not right. You are wrong. Hospitals do not note birth time 364 days a year just because, for a few minutes on the 365th day, it might have tax implications. All they have to note for tax reasons is the year of birth.

And I think it's safe to assume that babies born on December 31/Jan 1 are given extra attention because EVERYBODY WORKING IN THE HOSPITAL IS GETTING HOLIDAY PAY. They're all missing their New Year's plans. They're all saying happy new year to each other. They're all making that "see you next year" joke. Every doctor, nurse, patient and janitor is acutely aware that it is about to be the next year.

On top of that, hospitals and newspapers love to tout the first baby born in the new year. My local paper has a whole little article every year on the first baby born on January 1.

So there are very good reasons why the staff would be aware of when a baby is born, even in the few minutes when Dec 31 turns to Jan 1.

None of those reasons have anything to do with taxes.

You. Are. Wrong.

Deal with it. You said something off the cuff without knowing what you were talking about. Instead of trying to somehow explain away your mistake, just admit you made one and move on. Is it really so hard for your ego to accept the fact that you could be wrong about something? I would hope you are not so mentally enfeabled that you cannot even process the fact that you could have made a mistake.

Alas, my hope may not match reality.

[Professor Yaffle]

There has to be a certain amount of trust here. I will trust that people will pick the most accurate reading, and you have to trust me that I don't know anybody here.

I've got an alt account, zaneblue, that I used to make a couple posts about my firsthand experience with domestic abuse, because at that point I felt ashamed of it. But nothing like going on national television conversationally talking about one's hooha and having spontaneous orgasms to obliterate that sort of feeling.

I wasn't intending at all to come here and do the astrology thing, I did it one of the other times I was here to resounding defeat. I've gotten a little better at it since, but I was just stung by astroman's attempt. If you are going to go down, better to go down with good technique! :D

You say you failed previously at a test here. If you fail again this time what will you conclude? That there may be nothing in astrology, or that you need to work to get even better at it? If the latter, I see no point in people here participating in this.

Also you say you have an alt account. Do you mean another account here at JREF? If so, you should know that it is against the rules to have more than one account here.

[Marrena]

:deadhorse

Of course I easily admit when I make mistakes, didn't I fold within a page on the earthquake thread? That's why I came here in the first place. But this isn't the Taming of the Shrew or something. Of course I'm not wrong, I just posted official government documentation showing that I'm right, and it's disturbing that

well it's just disturbing to read your post. I'm not saying it's the only reason hospitals note births, I've listed other reasons too, but when I first mentioned the tax thing, the only thing in my mind was the year-end issue. I used to work as a bookkeeper and did corporate taxes and I've had two kids and do my own taxes, I'm hardly a tax expert but I certainly know that on a day-by-day basis birth time has nothing to do with taxes, but I never meant to imply that. So if you were thinking that's what I was saying (which I wasn't) I will happily say that that is a completely wrong thing.

Must be comforting in a world of grayscale to have such an irrational black and white view of the world. But don't mock my irrational beliefs when you are a pit of irrationality!

[Marrena]

You say you failed previously at a test here. If you fail again this time what will you conclude? That there may be nothing in astrology, or that you need to work to get even better at it? If the latter, I see no point in people here participating in this.

Also you say you have an alt account. Do you mean another account here at JREF? If so, you should know that it is against the rules to have more than one account here.

I apologize, I didn't read the rules carefully enough. There was a thread on domestic abuse, my husband had hit me, I was still married at the time and I am posting under my real first name. I was a little worried. I have children. My husband at the time was refusing divorce.

I am doing this test not for my own edification, but because Jackalgirl proposed it. I'm doing it for fun and because she asked. If I fail, I assume the personal result will be the same as last time, I will be resolved to become a better astrologer. I didn't come here to do an astrological test, I came here with a question about earthquakes.

The point in JREF members participating is to prove that generally accepted principles of astrology are wrong. I'm doing the standard, universally accepted good practices for astrology, unlike astroman.

But I don't want to be a pain in the ass. If there are already ten men, why don't I just do those alone. If I don't get at least five, I lose. Easy enough, no more hassle.

[Professor Yaffle]

Interestingly at the conclusion of that test, you said:

Yes, I now dismiss astrology. Perhaps I didn't make that clear. Or maybe you just didn't read all the posts in this thread, and I hardly blame you.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=732287#post732287

[Loss Leader]

I'm not saying it's the only reason hospitals note births, I've listed other reasons too, but when I first mentioned the tax thing, the only thing in my mind was the year-end issue.


Ah, well that makes it easy. You Are Wrong. Tax is not reason among many that hospitals note birth times. Tax is no reason at all.

Of all the reasons that hospitals note birth times, none of those reasons has anything at all to do with taxation.

You were wrong when you first said it. You were wrong when you tried to add other reasons to it. You were wrong when you tried to focus just on Dec 31/Jan 1. You are still wrong.

And, as has been pointed out, you were wrong when you did your astrology test last time. You were wrong when you said that the previous test had caused you to dismiss astrology. You were wrong when you maintained two accounts at the JREF.

Really, it would probably be easier to list the things about which you are right. If any come up, I will be sure to note them.

[Marrena]

Yes, because sometimes it's easier to lie and give in to avoid :deadhorse

Oh, by the way, Loss Leader, I Am Wrong! :D

[Pixel42]

But I don't want to be a pain in the ass. If there are already ten men, why don't I just do those alone. If I don't get at least five, I lose. Easy enough, no more hassle.
Sounds like a plan.

And Marrena: sceptics by their very nature tend to be a bit pedantic, we like to get things straight and can sometimes pursue a fact way past the point where it ceases to be relevant. Don't take it personally :)

[Professor Yaffle]

Marrena - I notice in the thread for your previous test, you talk about twins.

Would you expect that babies born within a few minutes of eachother at a similar location (but not actual twins) would be very similar to eachother?

[Ivor the Engineer]

However, time of birth is usually recorded in a baby's "red book" these days. So I don't know my own exact time of birth, but I do know it for my two sons.

When is birth considered to have occurred? E.g., when the body is fully out? The first breath? When the cord is cut?

Does it matter which time zone you're in?

What if the baby was born on a plane flying across the International Date Line?

[Marrena]

Yes, if they had the same rising sign. Sometimes people can be born right on the cusp, but generally yes.

Again, it's very frustrating because as I said the same chart could produce a surgeon or a serial killer. Most people wouldn't call those two people "similar." But something like IQ or athletic ability, I would say yes.

[Professor Yaffle]

Yes, if they had the same rising sign. Sometimes people can be born right on the cusp, but generally yes.

Again, it's very frustrating because as I said the same chart could produce a surgeon or a serial killer. Most people wouldn't call those two people "similar." But something like IQ or athletic ability, I would say yes.

So if someone did a study on a fairly large number of these "time twins" you would expect to find at least a correlation between them on basic personality traits. Ok a few pairs might have different rising signs, but because these would be few, the overall result should show a strong relationship?

[Marrena]

Let me guess...someone has done just that. Yes, that would categorically disprove astrology.

[Olowkow]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2003/aug/17/20030817-105449-9384r/
Sorry, couldn't help myself. :)

[Marrena]

When is birth considered to have occurred? E.g., when the body is fully out? The first breath? When the cord is cut?

Does it matter which time zone you're in?

What if the baby was born on a plane flying across the International Date Line?

My software compensates for time zone, I said five minutes to discourage people from saying (relying on family memory) "I was born at ten in the morning" it's really more like a twenty-minute window, a conjunction is within one or two degrees on either side. So the exact nanosecond isn't really an issue

Astrology isn't numerology, it doesn't matter if the date system is one thing or another, so the International Date Line wouldn't make a difference, what matters is the exact positions of the planets at the time of birth.

[Professor Yaffle]

Let me guess...someone has done just that. Yes, that would categorically disprove astrology.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1439101/Astrologers-fail-to-predict-proof-they-are-wrong.html

[Marrena]

Well I'm a scientist before I'm a witch. That truly does prove astrology totally wrong.

Of course I'd like to take a look at the data. Do you have a direct link? I'm assuming all the births were in London, but even if they were spread out over Europe it wouldn't make all that much difference, it would still disprove astrology.

I'd also like to take a look at the IQ score comparisons and athletic ability, in particular.

I'm certainly glad I learned all this AFTER I had to find the courage to do what I've been doing the last several years. I don't think I would have had the Thatchers to do it otherwise. :D

[Professor Yaffle]

Well I'm a scientist before I'm a witch. That truly does prove astrology totally wrong.

Of course I'd like to take a look at the data. Do you have a direct link? I'm assuming all the births were in London, but even if they were spread out over Europe it wouldn't make all that much difference, it would still disprove astrology.

I'd also like to take a look at the IQ score comparisons and athletic ability, in particular.

I'm certainly glad I learned all this AFTER I had to find the courage to do what I've been doing the last several years. I don't think I would have had the Thatchers to do it otherwise. :D

I think this is the one - but its behind a paywall. I might be able to get to it from work next week.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/01918869/1996/00000021/00000003/art00112

It is also reported here (go to page 13 of the PDF - labelled page 187):

http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

ETA - it is worthwhile reading the whole of that PDF. The author is an ex astrologer.

[Marrena]

Well THAT article is hardly reassuring! It sounds like the study was done by psychic researchers who were trying to prove astrology wrong to somehow prove psychic ability or some such?

But from a different link that I dug up, this is conclusive, if true

We conducted a more powerful test involving 2101 persons born in London during 3-9 March 1958 averaging 4.8 minutes apart. For each person 110 variables were available, including ability test scores, interests, and ratings of behaviour, all of which are supposed to be shown in the birth chart. The test conditions could hardly have been more conducive to success but the results were uniformly negative. The effect size due to astrology, expressed as a correlation on a scale of 0 to 1, was 0.00 ± 0.03.

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=32

[Professor Yaffle]

Well THAT article is hardly reassuring! It sounds like the study was done by psychic researchers who were trying to prove astrology wrong to somehow prove psychic ability or some such?

But from a different link that I dug up, this is conclusive, if true



http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=32

Yes, the details mentioned there are the same as the study I am talking about. And it hardly matters why the researchers were doing the study as long as the methods were sound and the conclusions are justified from the results.

[Olowkow]

Here is a full paper by Dean and Kelly:
http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

Just thought I should add a quote:

about $US3,000) was offered to any astrologer who could successfully match
all charts to their owners. Of the 44 astrologers who took the test, at least half had
read more than one hundred charts and were very experienced, while one-third
were frequently paid for their services. Half expected 100% hits and only six
expected less than 60%, so again their confidence was high. But their mean
effect size was –0.04, not even in the right direction, and the mean agreement
between astrologers was 0.01. The best astrologer scored three hits, as did one
non-astrologer (Nanninga, 1996).So is the test still on?

ETA: I noticed that Prof Y just posted the same PDF, sorry.

[RichardR]

Marrena:

This sort of test has been done before, and much more comprehensively, by Shawn Carlson - and astrology failed spectacularly. Read a summary here - testing astrology (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/what_do_you_mea.html).

What explanation do you have for why the astrologers failed that test, and why do you think your test would be any different?

[Marrena]

Sure, why not? I was doing it for entertainment, and it certainly sounds like it will be entertaining!

Oy.

[Olowkow]

Sure, why not? I was doing it for entertainment, and it certainly sounds like it will be entertaining!

Oy.

Well, good. I think it would be even more fun if someone, an astrology skeptic, volunteered to write up their summaries of the subjects' personalities using their own "guesses" regarding the same data. Sort of a "control" for the study. I have a few candidates in mind that would be perfect for the task.

[Marrena]

Fine, but they need to be blinded too!

So where are my ten men?

[Marrena]

Wait, there was no control group. Did they have a control group for that "twin" study?

[Professor Yaffle]

Wait, there was no control group. Did they have a control group for that "twin" study?

You don't usually have a control group in a correlational study. What form would this control group take? And what results from a control group would invalidate the conclusion, given that they found no correlation between subects in the experimental group?

I think you are clutching at straws here.

[rsaavedra]

This sort of test has been done before, and much more comprehensively, by Shawn Carlson - and astrology failed spectacularly. Read a summary here - testing astrology (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/what_do_you_mea.html).
Excellent link!

[Olowkow]

Just for the record, Randi has done this experiment many times. There is a good video of it on YouTube.

http://skepdic.com/forer.html
The Forer effect refers to the tendency of people to rate sets of statements as highly accurate for them personally even though the statements could apply to many people.Forer gave a personality test to his students, ignored their answers, and gave each student the above evaluation. He asked them to evaluate the evaluation from 0 to 5, with "5" meaning the recipient felt the evaluation was an "excellent" assessment and "4" meaning the assessment was "good." The class average evaluation was 4.26. That was in 1948. The test has been repeated hundreds of time with psychology students and the average is still around 4.2 out of 5, or 84% accurate.Here is my analysis of all ten subjects. :)
You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them.

You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations.

You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic.

[Marrena]

No I'm not. Like that whole Mars in Pisces thing predicting being bad at sports. What if Mars was retrograde in Pisces for that time period and everybody there had it? Sure the house system (dependent on time) does have some effect, but people of a certain age do share certain characteristics, all the slow-moving planets would be in the same sign, and that most definitely would be true over the period of several days these children were born. This cohort should be compared against a random sample. It would be sufficient to look at the metrics, for example IQ. That must have a well-documented distribution. Did this cohort's IQ approach random, or was it clustered in one area?

I sure would like to look at the source data.

[Professor Yaffle]

For what you are saying to be valid, the subjects would all have to be under some configuration that had overwhelming effects on every single variable studied (and they looked at a lot of variables). Are there any configurations that are hypothesised to have such a profound effect over the whole of a persons personality etc that it overrules all the more finely tuned time based effects that usually seem so important to astrologers?

[Moochie]

Is Linda Goodman still among the living?


M.

[Marrena]

Well the most basic astrology, of course, is sun sign astrology. Astrologers fight against the perception that they are saying that everyone is the same, they aren't, the house system tells where different things fall, but yes, on a fundamental level a Capricorn is a Capricorn is a Capricorn. If I were to test myself against my astrological twins Patrick Dempsey and Rob Zombie, I think we'd be pretty similar.

Astrologers get called out for making generational pronouncements. The slower moving planets (and there are more of those) generally have boilerplate writing for the outer planets signs, although house placement is customized.

For example here's typical boilerplate language for the Baby Boomers. Of course you can say this is easy enough to write about after the fact, and it is, nevertheless these are Leo characteristics

Pluto in Leo: marked a generation (1939 to 1956, and some in 1957 and 1958) that was obsessed with self-expression. These are the War babies and the baby boomers, and "Do your own thing" was (and still is) their motto. This was the generation that was never going to grow old. As they age, they become fanatic about trying to stay young, hence the proliferation of health clubs. Before 1960, marketing experts could tell estimate from a person’s income, what kind of car they would probably drive, how expensive their house was, etc. The Pluto in Leo people turned that topsy-turvy because they would splurge on the things most important to them and skimp on everything else. You would get people who would live in a small house but drive a big car and take expensive vacations, or someone who would live in a big house and drive a beetle. And of course, this generation made all those riots on the campus. Pluto in Leo will always defy authority, unless, of course, THEY are the authority.

[Olowkow]

Is Linda Goodman still among the living?


M.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Goodman
It is said that Linda Goodman died on October 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_21), 1995 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995), in Colorado (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado) from complications of diabetes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes). She was 70. Despite reports of her death, some of her followers maintain that she is still alive, living anonymously in rural New Zealand.

[Marrena]

Let me be clear--if that cohort was similar to random it really would drive a nail in the coffin of astrology. It wouldn't need a control group measuring all the metrics--any random sample of similar-aged children for each metric would work. I'm not trying to wriggle out of this.

[Moochie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Goodman


Thanks for that. I didn't think anyone would take my post seriously. I recycled my LG books decades ago. That's what Capricorns do, sometimes.


M.

[ddt]

I'll go with what the hospital defines as birth. Most birth certificates record birth time for tax reasons.

To chip in my € 0.02 in this discussion: I guess this depends entirely on the jurisdiction. And frankly, I can think of all kinds of reasons why the birth day is important - tax, eligibility to vote, to marry, to obtain a driving license, draft - I can think of no reason why the exact time on a day is important. In fact, your argument about the time also only centers on which day someone is born, not the exact time of day.

I checked the Dutch Civil Code what it says about the government registration of births, and it doesn't mention the time either - only the date.

[Marrena]

In fact, your argument about the time also only centers on which day someone is born, not the exact time of day.


:hb:

[RichardR]

Let me be clear--if that cohort was similar to random it really would drive a nail in the coffin of astrology. It wouldn't need a control group measuring all the metrics--any random sample of similar-aged children for each metric would work. I'm not trying to wriggle out of this.
I'm still wondering what you think of all the the tests of astrology (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/what_do_you_mea.html) that astrology failed. Haven't they already driven the final nails into the coffin of astrology? If not, why not?

[Hokulele]

For example here's typical boilerplate language for the Baby Boomers. Of course you can say this is easy enough to write about after the fact, and it is, nevertheless these are Leo characteristics


Too bad this only seems to apply to the people born in those years in portions of Western countries. There are large numbers of Asians who would be very offended by this character description.

[Marrena]

Tests of astrologers I don't put much credence in. The profession seems to attract more than its share of idiots, like if half of all scientists happened to be perpetual motion scientists. For example, an interview I did the women interviewing me had been semi-famous as professional astrologers for a woman's fashion magazine a couple years back. When I pressed them, wanting to talk shop they freely confessed they didn't know the first thing about it, it was just a job. They made it all up.

The others I would have to know a little bit more about them. Although one does surprise me, "These two studies found no correlation between sun sign and personality traits measured by the CPI, including the femininity index. " Taurus and Cancer sun sign men I would expect to register a little higher on the femininity index (whatever that is), although rising sign has a huge impact on how a person appears to others.

[RichardR]

Tests of astrologers I don't put much credence in. The profession seems to attract more than its share of idiots, like if half of all scientists happened to be perpetual motion scientists.

With Carlson's test, the astrologers were recommended by the San Francisco chapter of the National Council for Geocosmic Research. Why would they have no credence? Is that your entire argument against Carlson's test - the astrologers were idiots?

[Marrena]

Too bad this only seems to apply to the people born in those years in portions of Western countries. There are large numbers of Asians who would be very offended by this character description.

I can explain this, but if I do then it will start a whole different argument.

[Marrena]

With Carlson's test, the astrologers were recommended by the San Francisco chapter of the National Council for Geocosmic Research. Why would they have no credence? Is that your entire argument against Carlson's test - the astrologers were idiots?

No, those guys aren't idiots. Checking again....

I was thrown off by the twins study thing where they are going on about psychic astrologers.

[Marrena]

The first test should not have failed. I don't really like the subjectivity part of it, that's why I like the twins study better, but it should have worked. The second part, personally I think personality tests are crap. I'd rather measure something a little more substantial like IQ.

I do have a question about your link--you've got the Gauquelin studies as failing, but I've got this:

http://www.planetos.info/mmf.html

saying they worked. They can't both be right.

[Jackalgirl]

Marrena, I have the first list of 10 and will PM it to you in a couple of minutes. I just wanted to double-check with you regarding the resulting readings -- are you ok with PMing either me or some other third-party as a last double-check for non-allowable clues before they get posted here in the Forum?

[Marrena]

Thank you! I will certainly PM the readings to you and let you post them after screening.

[Marrena]

I just wanted to mention what I meant by subjectivity in my previous post. I had my chart done in college because a friend was really into it, I thought it was a bunch of hooey. I remember the astrologer said I was cut out for being a teacher, that I should be speaking in front of groups teaching people. I just laughed at her because I was really shy and introverted, I wanted to work in a lab or be a programmer. And I am a programmer. But through an odd twist of fate I am finding myself getting up in front of groups and lecturing. That's not why I believe in astrology, but I do believe people grow into their charts, or at least grow into the ability to recognize themselves.

[AntiTelharsic]

Marrena,

How much time do you think it will take to do all ten readings?

[Marrena]

I'm done. Neeeeed coffeeeeeee. Bleah.

Unusual group! I was worried that the charts would be so unremarkable they would be hard to recognize, but boy was I wrong about that. Although one thing I am concerned about is they are remarkable in similar ways--interesting bunch you have here. :D You guys are intense.

[rsaavedra]

Marrena, you mentioned that you use a software. Did you write the chart interpretations yourself, or just introduced the data through this software or webpage which then might print out standard individual interpretations for each aspect? (Either way shouldn't affect in any way the aim of this test; I'm just wondering.)

[Marrena]

Even the best boilerplate astrology software, which is the software I use at

http://www.astro.com

is only going to spit out pretty useless boilerplate language, like the cold reading example given earlier in this thread because it has to apply to everybody. So I used that website to generate the charts and all the angles, but I did the interpretation (somewhat badly) myself.

[Delvo]

Although one does surprise me, "These two studies found no correlation between sun sign and personality traits measured by the CPI, including the femininity index. " Taurus and Cancer sun sign men I would expect to register a little higher on the femininity index (whatever that is), although rising sign has a huge impact on how a person appears to others.These are the statements of a person who believes that astrology really does accurately predict things about people. But in other posts you've said you don't and you accept that it's been shown not to work before. Which is it? (And if you really don't believe in it, then what the test testing?)

I do believe people grow into their charts, or at least grow into the ability to recognize themselves.If it's wrong sometimes and right sometimes within the same person's life, then it's like flipping a coin and declaring the result a win regardless of which way it lands. Exactly the opposite prediction would have had the same accuracy, wrong at one point and right at another point. Some people's tendency to see a result like that and only pay attention to the "right" part while ignoring the "wrong" part is what keeps all kinds of woo-woo going.

[rsaavedra]

So I used that website to generate the charts and all the angles, but I did the interpretation (somewhat badly) myself.
Ok, I was hoping for that at least.

[rsaavedra]

Some people's tendency to see a result like that and only pay attention to the "right" part while ignoring the "wrong" part is what keeps all kinds of woo-woo going.
Yes, the tendency to seek just confirmatory information ignoring conflicting evidence, and the tendency to confuse necessary evidence with sufficient evidence.

[Sherman Bay]

Marrena, something occurs to me that needs to be addressed BEFORE a test is begun.

I've never been in a delivery room, but I have heard that the exact time (hours, minutes, seconds) may not have been recorded super-accurately. At least in times past, I suppose when things quieted down after the birth, someone grabbed a clipboard and said, "what time shall I put?" Not to mention the loose definition of what birth time actually is: first sight of head, first cry or cutting of the cord?

And I doubt if many people remember their exact time as recorded on a birth certificate unless they haul it out to look. So unless you insist on seeing their document, you may have to rely on their memory.

Now I don't expect anyone to give the wrong DATE for themselves (unless they are being dishonest, but that's another problem), but they might give the wrong TIME.

So, what kind of window will you allow for your astrological statements to be valid? If you will permit the time to be up to 23:59 wrong, we have no problem, but if you say, "only a hour", that provides a too-easy out, i.e., the reason why you failed the test is because the times were too far off.

What do you say? Let's clear this up BEFORE the test, not after.

[Marrena]

Actually the window is around twenty minutes. I felt comfortable with the times of nine out of the ten subjects, and I worked around the tenth one. I'm not going to quibble about times.

[Marrena]

These are the statements of a person who believes that astrology really does accurately predict things about people. But in other posts you've said you don't and you accept that it's been shown not to work before. Which is it? (And if you really don't believe in it, then what the test testing?)

If it's wrong sometimes and right sometimes within the same person's life, then it's like flipping a coin and declaring the result a win regardless of which way it lands. Exactly the opposite prediction would have had the same accuracy, wrong at one point and right at another point. Some people's tendency to see a result like that and only pay attention to the "right" part while ignoring the "wrong" part is what keeps all kinds of woo-woo going.

I don't believe a chart is going to say, "You are going to marry in this year and have a career in hosting a television show and have three kids and die of kidney failure." So predicting "things" no, some abilities and characteristics, yes.

I didn't say sometimes right and sometimes wrong. I said you had to grow into your chart, so the older a person, the more they would recognize the chart belonged to them.

[rsaavedra]

If every planet is more than 5 degrees away from any house border in the 10 charts given, and the ascendants in those charts are more than 5 degrees away from any border between constellations, then up to +/- 20 minutes error in any of the charts' birthdates shouldn't make any difference at all.

Replace 5 with 2.5 degrees above, then up to +/- 10 minutes shouldn't make any difference at all.

[rsaavedra]

You are going to marry in this year and have a career in hosting a television show and have three kids and die of kidney failure."
Astrology does have the so called analysis of planetary "transits", as well as solar revolutions, which in few words attempt to predict things like that on top of whatever the general guidelines of the birthchart say. Not as categorical as "you will die of kidney failure", but things along the lines of "your birthchart indicates a severe weakness in the (let's say) respiratory system, and this year within these few weeks there is a transit that negatively impacts that very weakness".

My suggestion with the injuries and trauma records from ER departments checked against (for example) the Saturn-Mars transits aimed precisely at testing that other part of Astrology.

[Marrena]

It occurs to me that people might not want me to make my readings public--I talk about sex and mental illness and kinkiness quite a bit. So I'd be fine if Jackalgirl decides to keep what I wrote private and only shows the ten men, and publicly only posts the hit and miss rate.

[RichardR]

The first test should not have failed. I don't really like the subjectivity part of it, that's why I like the twins study better, but it should have worked.
I agree it should have worked, if astrology was real. So you would agree the results were consistent with the idea that astrology is bunk?

The second part, personally I think personality tests are crap.
Well, to test astrology you have to compare the predictions of astrology with the actual personality characteristics of the individual. So how do you determine what the actual personality characteristics of the individual are? It seems to me you can:


Ask the individual (which is the first test that astrology failed). Unless I'm missing something here, this is the sort of test you're proposing.
Ask friends of the individual, or some other third party expert. That might be OK if you could first show that these people could select the accurate description of the subject from two controls.
Use a less subjective method, such as a personality test. That was the second test that astrology failed. The CPI was used because it reports similar characteristics to the ones astrology is supposed to predict (according to the astrologers consulted).

If none of these methods are acceptable, then astrology can’t be tested, which means that astrology is almost certainly bogus. For one, astrology’s doubtful provenance (no known method by which it is supposed to work, no known way its rules were derived, its absurd premises), mean we need extraordinary evidence that it works. By this I mean better evidence that we demand for many other things. But we are only offered poor evidence – anecdotes that are biased by the Forer Effect and confirmation bias. And for two, if astrology can’t be tested, then clearly no one would ever have been able to work out all the detailed rules astrologers use in the first place. How would they have been able to work out the rules if there is no way of ever testing them to see if they were right?

So how did the early astrologers derive the detailed rules of astrology? We have so much trouble testing it now - how did the ancients do it?

I'd rather measure something a little more substantial like IQ.

I wasn't aware that astrology is supposed to predict IQ - I've never seen it in any astrological book or text I've read. If so, it certainly isn't one of the major things that are usually referred to. Is astrology supposed to predict IQ? Where do you get that info from?

I do have a question about your link--you've got the Gauquelin studies as failing, but I've got this:

http://www.planetos.info/mmf.html

saying they worked. They can't both be right.

The results were equivocal at best. Link (http://www.skepticfiles.org/skeptic/marsef07.htm) (scroll down 2/3 rds):

From the enormous number (198) of Belgian cyclists in the Belgian test it might be concluded that even during the Belgian test the Gauquelins were not too strict about how excellent a champion must be. But *after* the American test they raised the standards. They complained that the data base for basketball players was too large (1000 U.S. champions). The reason? In their own data they had 33 basketball players of whom only 3 were born in the appropriate Mars sector. So they thought they had reason to distrust basketball players. After the test they suggested that only "Olympic gold medal winners" were champion level. The results of Ertel clearly show that the Gauquelins biased their data.

[Denver]

...

I didn't say sometimes right and sometimes wrong. I said you had to grow into your chart, so the older a person, the more they would recognize the chart belonged to them.

It might be interesting to have a further series of tests then, say, one for ages 30-39, one for 40-49, one for 50-59. And see if there is a correlation on accuracy versus age, to verify whether the older ones have better grown into the chart?

[Marrena]

That's bad science if they were pre-selecting their sample to fit the outcome. But my link says the study was successfully replicated.

Astrology should predict IQ.

I like more objective testing like the sports thing and IQ, that's why I like the twins study, also because of the large N. But I don't like the lack of a control group.

Frankly the Mars study if not replicable would be enough to convince me astrology is bunk. That should work.

Early astrologers were judged much more harshly if they were wrong. A dangerous job to hold! They predicted the outcome of battles, etc.

[RichardR]

Early astrologers were judged much more harshly if they were wrong. A dangerous job to hold! They predicted the outcome of battles, etc.
Yeah, but how did they figure out all the rules? And were they right in their predictions? Above mere chance and forer statements, that is.

[Loss Leader]

Astrology should predict IQ.


Actually, the best predictor of IQ is just the average of the IQs of the mother and the father. That'll get you most of the way there.

But astrology bears no relation to IQ. Here (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Day_files/Year.html), for example, is a calendar tracking the birthdates of famous mathematicians. Try to find a day when one wasn't born.

[rsaavedra]

Astrology should predict IQ.
So should it predict mental retardation as well?

That is easy to test, though I wonder if it borders or steps clearly on the politically incorrect / unethical.

Consider a set of pairs of birthdates (by birthdate I mean, date and time and place of birth.) In each pair one birthdate belongs to a person with a verifiably high IQ, significantly higher than normal; the other birthdate belongs to a person that at the same age of the former's IQ test had a significantly lower than average IQ; maybe even a person with a verifiable mental disability. Give a large enough such set to a set of astrologers; see if they can properly classify the elements in the pairs appropiately, for example: "in this pair it's the second person the one with the higher IQ", according to whatever Astrology says about each birthdate's IQ, and see if such classification gets done with an accuracy higher than chance by any of the astrologers.

If Astrology can predict IQ, then it should be able to predict things like longevity as well, shoudn't it? (Can you establish a limit to what Astrology can predict after all?) How about testing that one. Choose pairs like the ones above, but in this case all birthdates correspond to people who have already died, at verifiable dates. The task is to choose which person lived a longer life within each pair. Easy. You could even set a minimum life-span difference within each pair if you'd like. For instance, at least a 20 year difference? A 50 year difference?

I'd like to say in Samuel Jackson's voice: "I dare you, I double dare you" ;)

[devnull]

I've never been in a delivery room, but I have heard that the exact time (hours, minutes, seconds) may not have been recorded super-accurately.

Especially in war time.

My father was actually born the day before the date that appears on his birth certificate.

For my 3 kids, its always been "near enough is good enough". We'd just sort of glance at the clock and call a time. Im sure the hospitals dont have atomic clocks on the walls, so possibly theyre miles out. But who cares? Its the last thing on your mind when your child has just been born.

[Marrena]

Oh my God, if astrology was based on birthday alone I wouldn't be wasting my time with it, Loss Leader. There are twelve influences, and only one has any relation to the day of the year.

I know that IQ is mostly a product of parents' IQ and also environment of course, that's why IQ is increasing over the years, because of early childhood mental stimulus. But I think there is also an astrological factor that could be detected with large enough N, just like sports ability.

I reiterate, if the sports/Mars thing is not replicable, astrology is bunk.

[Marrena]

Especially in war time.

My father was actually born the day before the date that appears on his birth certificate.

For my 3 kids, its always been "near enough is good enough". We'd just sort of glance at the clock and call a time. Im sure the hospitals dont have atomic clocks on the walls, so possibly theyre miles out. But who cares? Its the last thing on your mind when your child has just been born.

I don't know, during my second birth I remember there was an extra nurse in the delivery room and it seemed her entire job was to stand there and watch the clock.

[Marrena]

So should it predict mental retardation as well?

That is easy to test, though I wonder if it borders or steps clearly on the politically incorrect / unethical.

Consider a set of pairs of birthdates (by birthdate I mean, date and time and place of birth.) In each pair one birthdate belongs to a person with a verifiably high IQ, significantly higher than normal; the other birthdate belongs to a person that at the same age of the former's IQ test had a significantly lower than average IQ; maybe even a person with a verifiable mental disability. Give a large enough such set to a set of astrologers; see if they can properly classify the elements in the pairs appropiately, for example: "in this pair it's the second person the one with the higher IQ", according to whatever Astrology says about each birthdate's IQ, and see if such classification gets done with an accuracy higher than chance by any of the astrologers.

If Astrology can predict IQ, then it should be able to predict things like longevity as well, shoudn't it? (Can you establish a limit to what Astrology can predict after all?) How about testing that one. Choose pairs like the ones above, but in this case all birthdates correspond to people who have already died, at verifiable dates. The task is to choose which person lived a longer life within each pair. Easy. You could even set a minimum life-span difference within each pair if you'd like. For instance, at least a 20 year difference? A 50 year difference?

I'd like to say in Samuel Jackson's voice: "I dare you, I double dare you" ;)

No, there are too many variables with longevity. The effect would wash out.

[Piggy]

I reiterate, if the sports/Mars thing is not replicable, astrology is bunk.

What about the article I posted in response to Volante's post?

[Piggy]

I don't know, during my second birth I remember there was an extra nurse in the delivery room and it seemed her entire job was to stand there and watch the clock.

That claim is just bizarre.

[yairhol]

Has Marrena's test begun already?
Has it finished?
What are the results?

[Marrena]

That claim is just bizarre.

That's not a "claim" that's a "fact". There was a young red-haired nurse in the delivery room and as far as I could tell, of course I was busy at the time, but she wasn't standing anywhere near the bed or any instrumentation, she was standing there alternately watching the clock on the wall and glancing at my hooha.

[yairhol]

That's not a "claim" that's a "fact". There was a young red-haired nurse in the delivery room and as far as I could tell, of course I was busy at the time, but she wasn't standing anywhere near the bed or any instrumentation, she was standing there alternately watching the clock on the wall and glancing at my hooha.
Could she have been a trainee?

[Marrena]

We already went over the fact that exact time of birth is used for Apgar tests, why on earth would it be remarkable that a hospital would have a nurse watching the time?

Show of hands, how many posters in this thread have been in a delivery room while a baby was being born.

Sorry, Piggy, missed your Volante post in this thread. Will go back and review.

[yairhol]

I'll be there towards the end of October 2008 for the first time...
I'll be keeping my eyes open at what's going on there. :eye-poppi

[Professor Yaffle]

We already went over the fact that exact time of birth is used for Apgar tests, why on earth would it be remarkable that a hospital would have a nurse watching the time?

Show of hands, how many posters in this thread have been in a delivery room while a baby was being born.

Sorry, Piggy, missed your Volante post in this thread. Will go back and review.

I have been present in a delivery room twice. The first time there were about 20 people in the room and nobody seemed to look at the clock until after the baby was born. The second time there was only one midwife present because baby made a very quick appearance shortly after we arrived. After the birth when someone else arrived, she looked at the clock and took a couple of minutes off the current time.

I have no idea why I answered that, since I am not that sure what the point of the argument is.

[Marrena]

Me neither! :lol2:

[MetalPig]

Has Marrena's test begun already?
Has it finished?
What are the results?
It's in process. The readings have been sent to the (male) participants.

[Piggy]

Sorry, Piggy, missed your Volante post in this thread. Will go back and review.

It's from the parent thread, here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3929886&highlight=journal#post3929886).

[Piggy]

That's not a "claim" that's a "fact". There was a young red-haired nurse in the delivery room and as far as I could tell, of course I was busy at the time, but she wasn't standing anywhere near the bed or any instrumentation, she was standing there alternately watching the clock on the wall and glancing at my hooha.

I'm sorry, but I do find it a bizarre claim that a nurse would be paid to just stand there and watch the clock to record the exact time of birth.

If any testing needs to be done within a certain time from an event (crowning, cutting umbilical, etc.) then a stopwatch would be preferable to the clock on the wall.

It doesn't make sense to me.

[Garrette]

I'm sorry, but I do find it a bizarre claim that a nurse would be paid to just stand there and watch the clock to record the exact time of birth.

If any testing needs to be done within a certain time from an event (crowning, cutting umbilical, etc.) then a stopwatch would be preferable to the clock on the wall.

It doesn't make sense to me.My thoughts exactly. I have been in the room at delivery twice and at neither time was anyone a designated clock-watcher.

[yairhol]

I'm sorry, but I do find it a bizarre claim that a nurse would be paid to just stand there and watch the clock to record the exact time of birth.

If any testing needs to be done within a certain time from an event (crowning, cutting umbilical, etc.) then a stopwatch would be preferable to the clock on the wall.

It doesn't make sense to me.
Astrology doesn't make sense either and still Marrena claims that it is true and valid. What can you do except try to prove them wrong.
I'll report back towards the end of October with pictures from the delivering room to prove or disprove Marrena's clock nurse claim (aka C.N.C.).

[yairhol]

It's in process. The readings have been sent to the (male) participants.
Thank you MetalPig.

[EHocking]

We already went over the fact that exact time of birth is used for Apgar tests, why on earth would it be remarkable that a hospital would have a nurse watching the time?Are APGAR test results noted on a birth certificate?

No.

The actual start time of the test is irrelevant, the intervals at which the observations are taken are relevant (and in fact not stringent).

The fact that APGAR tests may be performed is not proof that exact birth time is noted on a birth certicate or even on medical records.

Note also that APGAR tests are not applied to every birth.
Show of hands, how many posters in this thread have been in a delivery room while a baby was being born.Irrelevant, since you noted yourself that those in a delivery rooom are generally distracted by the action at hand....

[RichardR]

Yeah, but how did they figure out all the rules? And were they right in their predictions? Above mere chance and forer statements, that is.
You don't know the answer to this, then?

I didn't really expect you to, but I just wanted to be clear whether it is yes or no.

[Marrena]

Why on earth are we arguing about this?

Very well, I should say I am not talking about worldwide clockwatching, or homebirth midwife clockwatching, but in an American hospital, as I think it was Loss Leader mentioned, time of birth is noted for medical reasons, Apgar testing

http://infant-toddler-health.suite101.com/article.cfm/newborn_apgar_scoring

If a baby is tested one minute and five minutes after birth, it's just common sense that someone in the delivery room is going to be paying attention to time of birth. Why on earth is this a debate topic? My own personal experience upholds this but it's hardly necessary.

[Marrena]

You don't know the answer to this, then?

I didn't really expect you to, but I just wanted to be clear whether it is yes or no.

They hardly had sophisticated scientific verification techniques back then. Astronomy was in its infancy, mathematics was in its infancy, and it would be millenia before the scientific method was in common use.

I assume you know as well as I do that astronomy back then was based on the birthdate of the king, and was mostly to predict the outcome of battles and crops. And if the astronomer was wrong the penalty was often death.

That's hardly an answerable question either way, we don't have a full historical record of the time for their track record. Off the top of my head, looking at the Bible it sounds like they sucked pretty bad--Daniel and Moses were better at predictions--but then again those accounts are a little biased. :)

On the other hand, I don't believe ancient people were stupid, and games of chance have been around for as long as astronomy has been. A lot of effort was expended back then on tracking planetary movements.

I'm not saying that's proof, certainly not, I'm just saying ancient history isn't going to tell us anything one way or the other, conclusively.

[Professor Yaffle]

Well, practically (in my experience), "one minute after birth" just meant "after you have let the mum have a brief cuddle". I don't think they had a stop watch on it to make sure it was exactly 1 minute after birth...

Though I still don't know why we are quibbling over it, since Marrena has said that she will accept birth certificate times, and apparently astrology doesn't need them to be precise to the minute anyway.

[Piggy]

Why on earth is this a debate topic?

Because it was such a weird thing to assert. It just begs to be beanbagged around. It's like if a buddy comes up and says, "Hey, can I bum five bucks? I just lost a bet with Vladimir Putin and I'm a fin short."

You're not gonna just say, "Oh, sure, here y'go, but I need it back by Thursday". You gotta tease THAT one out!

[Professor Yaffle]

It was probably a student midwife who wasn't allowed to do anything practical yet and was in a hurry to leave the second her shift ended.

[Marrena]

I certainly hope this link puts this ridiculous argument to rest

http://www.health.qld.gov.au/pccm/pdfs/paed/4.12_Norm_Lab.pdf

It's a manual for doctors on labor and delivery--Australian, so this isn't just an American practice

page 356, one of the checkboxes, "Look at the clock, noting time of birth."

Maybe my nurse was just standing there watching the clock because my second birth was so easy, I was only in the delivery room about twenty minutes, I estimate, if that. (And yes, I freely admit my sense of time was distorted so I am probably wrong about the exact duration). But my point is that it is standard practice in hospitals to note the time of birth. Christ!

[Marrena]

The fact that APGAR tests may be performed is not proof that exact birth time is noted on a birth certicate or even on medical records.


I'm pretty sure three of the men I did the birth time was approximate. There's really a twenty minute window or so, except for rare angles if you are really interested in the tightness, rounding is okay.

[Denver]

BTW, my own experience with clocks is if you have several people in a room, and you check all their watches against the clock on the wall, there will be a difference of several minutes one way or the other between them all. I can only imagine this was even more pronounced 40 years ago, before digital. But even now, try walking around an office building, and noting the differences.

I don't know if hospitals keep all their clocks and watches synchronized these days, but I kind of doubt it.

ETA: I just checked all the digital clocks around my house. All the "connected" clocks (in the computer, in the phones) are currently one minute faster than the ones in the rest of the house (VCR, Microwave, wall clock, car, etc). Anyone else notice deviations?

[Marrena]

For astrological purposes, it's not that important. The only issues it would affect would be cusps, where a full degree is close enough, or angles involving the moon. All the other planets move slow enough that it's not that big a deal. A ten-minute window is pretty stringent, a twenty-minute window is generally close enough.

The only reason I put down five minutes was to avoid birth times obviously rounded to the nearest hour--people don't round to 8:46, for example.

[EHocking]

I'm pretty sure three of the men I did the birth time was approximate. There's really a twenty minute window or so, except for rare angles if you are really interested in the tightness, rounding is okay.The point was, birth certificates don't record time, regardless of what post-birth tests are carried out.

And since you stated test subjects for this exercise were to be older than 30 years, time is even less likely to be accurately recorded by family, doctor, hospital and certainly not on a birth certificate.

20min window or not.

My birth "time" is vaguely around 2 am, so give or take 1/2 an hour. would that still be sufficiently "accurate" for you to be able to build a reasonable chart for me?

That's really the crux of the discussion I think.

ETA: "rounded to the nearest hour" looks like my time would be too vague?

[Loss Leader]

That's not a "claim" that's a "fact". There was a young red-haired nurse in the delivery room and as far as I could tell, of course I was busy at the time, but she wasn't standing anywhere near the bed or any instrumentation, she was standing there alternately watching the clock on the wall and glancing at my hooha.


My official guess is that she was a float nurse who, due to the speed of your delivery, had nothing to do.


ETA: I was in the room for the birth of both of my sons.

[Marrena]

The point was, birth certificates don't record time, regardless of what post-birth tests are carried out.

And since you stated test subjects for this exercise were to be older than 30 years, time is even less likely to be accurately recorded by family, doctor, hospital and certainly not on a birth certificate.

20min window or not.

My birth "time" is vaguely around 2 am, so give or take 1/2 an hour. would that still be sufficiently "accurate" for you to be able to build a reasonable chart for me?

That's really the crux of the discussion I think.

ETA: "rounded to the nearest hour" looks like my time would be too vague?

I was supplied with birth time information that seemed to be by the minute for seven, ten-minute intervals for two, and one I think was probably guesstimated. If you are saying the seven made up exact times like 7:32 am and so forth, then yes, the test is invalid. I was assuming the birth times were relatively accurate.

[RichardR]

They hardly had sophisticated scientific verification techniques back then. Astronomy was in its infancy, mathematics was in its infancy, and it would be millenia before the scientific method was in common use.
Exactly! But I'm not talking about verification - that means confirming or testing something you already suspect is true. I'm talking about derivation - how they derived the information in the first place. As you point out, science was in its infancy, if even that. So, since we're having trouble verifying this even now, how do you suppose they were able to do the step that came before that - to even derive the information from scratch - all those years ago with no modern tools? Surely, deriving the information from first principles must require even more skill with the scientific method?

Unless they just made it up. Because their lack of sophistication etc coupled with the total lack of any records of how astrology was derived, is totally consistent with the idea that they just made it up. And if they just made it up, how likely is it that their made-up stories, based on nothing, were true? I'm talking about astrology's lack of Provenance (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2008/07/provenance.html) - any rational reason all the detailed rules of astrology were ever written down in the first place. Because, even of astrology worked exactly as described and was 100% correct, how likely is it that any made up explanation would exactly match actuality? In my Astrology Challenge (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/03/the_astrology_c.html) I asked several leading astrologers how this was done, and none of them knew.

[Marrena]

Ancient people were not idiots. They didn't have the scientific method for testing and proving something, but they were a helluva lot better at observation than we are today. Almost all of our modern medicines have their basis in herbs that have been used medicinally for centuries in various cultures. How did those people discover those herbs were helpful without the FDA and double-blind placebo-controlled studies?

You also have to realize that for most cultures back then, astrology was the pinnacle of learning, all the brightest minds were recruited, and all the spare resources of kingdoms were thrown at learning as much as possible about it.

The beginnings of astrology didn't have to do with natal charts at all, or time. They had to do with the effects of current astrological configurations. This sort of astrology is still done today, but much less popular in this age of the individual. The most obvious example of this is new and full moons, particularly eclipses, but all sorts of relations between the known planets were tracked. You still hear this today with people complaining that communications, electronics and transportation go awry when Mercury is retrograde. Seeing when Mercury is retrograde doesn't take any special equipment or anything--the motion is visible to the naked eye, if someone is paying attention--and they were paying attention. They had to pay special attention anyhow to the heavens to know when to plant crops, etc., and over time if they noticed that the crops were especially good, say, when Jupiter was trining Venus in the night sky, they paid attention.

What sign the moon is in and its effects on crops and weather has been the the mainstay of almanacs for hundreds of years, along with other planetary positions. Yes, their accuracy rate is below 25% on day-to-day, I don't need the link, thank you. But general trends I think they are useful.

I'm not saying here that they are right, I'm just saying that if they were right, that that's how they did it in the beginning. Natal charts came later

[Jackalgirl]

Just an update, folks: I'm still waiting on some responses. I prefer not to say anything about the results until they're all in. Just wanted to make sure you didn't think I'd disappeared.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Almost all of our modern medicines have their basis in herbs that have been used medicinally for centuries in various cultures.
Almost all?!! Are you quite sure of that? You think it's say north of 90% of all medicines that have their basis in medicinal herbs?

I'd be willing to bet money it's less than that.

[RichardR]

Ancient people were not idiots. They didn't have the scientific method for testing and proving something, but they were a helluva lot better at observation than we are today.

And on what do you base that claim? How much better? How was that measured? Who says so?

Almost all of our modern medicines have their basis in herbs that have been used medicinally for centuries in various cultures. How did those people discover those herbs were helpful without the FDA and double-blind placebo-controlled studies?

Well for one, I would need evidence that the majority of those herbs do what it is claimed they do. You can demonstrate that, right? Because the usual problem with herbal remedies is some work but most don't.

You also have to realize that for most cultures back then, astrology was the pinnacle of learning, all the brightest minds were recruited, and all the spare resources of kingdoms were thrown at learning as much as possible about it.

OK, so they had the smartest people of the time. Still no explanation of how they figured out astrology though. You know, how they did something we can't do now.

The beginnings of astrology didn't have to do with natal charts at all, or time. They had to do with the effects of current astrological configurations. This sort of astrology is still done today, but much less popular in this age of the individual. The most obvious example of this is new and full moons, particularly eclipses, but all sorts of relations between the known planets were tracked. You still hear this today with people complaining that communications, electronics and transportation go awry when Mercury is retrograde.

Evidence please that electronics and transportation go awry when Mercury is retrograde. (Real evidence please - not what some astrologer just claims without evidence.)

Seeing when Mercury is retrograde doesn't take any special equipment or anything--the motion is visible to the naked eye, if someone is paying attention--and they were paying attention.

Yes, but how did they link the things they saw (Mercury is retrograde) with the detailed rules for what this meant for someone's personality.

They had to pay special attention anyhow to the heavens to know when to plant crops, etc., and over time if they noticed that the crops were especially good, say, when Jupiter was trining Venus in the night sky, they paid attention.

Evidence please that crop yields are related to where Jupiter or Venus is in the night sky.

What sign the moon is in and its effects on crops and weather has been the the mainstay of almanacs for hundreds of years, along with other planetary positions. Yes, their accuracy rate is below 25% on day-to-day, I don't need the link, thank you. But general trends I think they are useful.

Yes - almanacs that predict lunar and planetary positions. But how does that relate to the effects these things are supposed to have on a person's personality (or IQ if you like) based on when they were born?.

I'm not saying here that they are right, I'm just saying that if they were right, that that's how they did it in the beginning. Natal charts came later

You're still missing the point. I'll give an example of a claimed prediction of astrology from astrologer Rob Hand (http://www.stariq.com/Main/Articles/P0001084.htm):

... a traditional textbook might say that Saturn conjunct the Moon in the Fourth House indicates a difficult early life and the likelihood of a parent who was not very nurturing. That's just an example of which there are many many more. This detail of predictions have been around for centuries - I'm not sure if the Babylonians went that far, but certainly they were claiming this centuries ago. How did they work out that detail of prediction? That's not the same as any of the examples you give. So how did they figure out these detailed rules if we can't even work them out today? Come on Marrena, you have to admit it was probably made up based on what they just thought sounded right.

[Delvo]

Ancient people were not idiots. They didn't have the scientific method for testing and proving something, but they were a helluva lot better at observation than we are today.I don't see any reason to believe that. I do see reason to believe they were more prone to simply making stuff up and pretending it's true and making it a big central part of their culture, and possibly more vulnerable to fooling themselves into thinking that they had "observed" patterns or tendencies that weren't really there.

And BTW, observation and the scientific method aren't two alternative but equal ways of finding out things about reality. Observation is the heart of the scientific method, and the rest of it is just there to make sure that the observations are thorough and uncorrupted, which is what makes science not merely different from non-science, but BETTER.

Almost all of our modern medicines have their basis in herbs that have been used medicinally for centuries in various cultures.No, they do not. Real examples of this do exist but are few and far between. Most "traditional" remedies are not used in modern scientific medicine because they have been found not to work, and most medicines that are used do not have that kind of history or origin. Last spring I took an introductory class in pharmacology covering a couple hundred drugs, which isn't all drugs but does include all of the basic types. The kind of thing you're talking about only came up two or three times that I can recall. One project I did for that class actually involved looking up examples of American Indian herbal drug lore, and I saw that practically none of it persists in use today. Even with the biggest and brightest example of overlap between traditional herbal drugs and modern medicine, salicylic acid (one form of which is named "Aspirin" because the people who made it had been working with plants of the genus Spirea instead of Salix), traditional uses still included almost as many wrong uses that it does nothing for as right ones that it actually helps with... and in one case they even tried to use it for the OPPOSITE of one of its major real uses (to promote blood clotting rather than to prevent or reduce it).

You still hear this today with people complaining that communications, electronics and transportation go awry when Mercury is retrograde.Yes, and I've rolled my eyes at them for being silly, because they said that at times when those things were NOT going any more awry than usual, and did NOT say it was retrograde at times when things really WERE going awry.

Yes, their accuracy rate is below 25% on day-to-day, I don't need the link, thank you. But general trends I think they are useful.An accuracy rate below 25% is a general trend of being WRONG.

[devnull]

Show of hands, how many posters in this thread have been in a delivery room while a baby was being born.


me. 3 times.

[Caz]

Originally Posted by Marrena
Show of hands, how many posters in this thread have been in a delivery room while a baby was being born.
me. 3 times.

Me, twice.
I tried to leave, but as I was in the process of giving birth, they kinda wanted me to stay put.

[Pixel42]

I was supplied with birth time information that seemed to be by the minute for seven, ten-minute intervals for two, and one I think was probably guesstimated. If you are saying the seven made up exact times like 7:32 am and so forth, then yes, the test is invalid. I was assuming the birth times were relatively accurate.
Again, one wonders how the generations of astrologers who lived between the invention of astrology and the invention of the clock managed to pinpoint peoples' birth times to an accuracy of plus or minus ten minutes.

[Professor Yaffle]

Traditional methods of discovering medicinal plants have come up with a few efficacious ones, but the vast majority don't work at all for the indications they are traditionally used. For example 200 herbs traditionally used in chinese medicine for malaria was sytematically tested for anti malarial activity. Only 1 out of those 200 worked. And that single one working doesn't mean that the underpinnings of TCM are any less wrong. Why do you think astrology would be any different to this?

Here's a systematic review of individualised herbal medicine:

http://pmj.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/83/984/633

[Marrena]

All right, I'm wrong. Only 30% of conventional medicines are derived from herbals

http://www.vaanes.org/FORUMS/Herbal.pdf

I thought it was more.

You are setting up straw man arguments, RichardR. You asked how the ancients derived astrology and I explained it. The efficacy of astrology we have already gone over ad nauseum in this thread. The origins of astrology were in current planetary positions, so a particular time was considered lucky or unlucky for doing things like planting or going to war. Over time natal astrology was incorporated for kings, and then as calendars and clocks improved it spread into the general populace.

[rsaavedra]

No, there are too many variables with longevity. The effect would wash out.
Should I assume that your not mentioning anything about IQ after my dare suggests you think astrologers would easily do the IQ classification of pairs as i suggested?

[Marrena]

I don't know about "easily" but yes, astrology should be able to do the test you suggested. I didn't realize you were asking a question.

Let me guess, that one has been done too.

[Kuko 4000]

Traditional methods of discovering medicinal plants have come up with a few efficacious ones, but the vast majority don't work at all for the indications they are traditionally used. For example 200 herbs traditionally used in chinese medicine for malaria was sytematically tested for anti malarial activity. Only 1 out of those 200 worked.

Off topic:

Out of interest, what is this working herb called, is it now in a "normal" medicine form as well, and how effective is it?

Thanks!

[catbasket]

Kuko_4000 -

"artemisinin" see Wellcome Trust article (http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/Media-office/Press-releases/2005/WTX026500.htm)


eta - press release, not article.

[fls]

All right, I'm wrong. Only 30% of conventional medicines are derived from herbals

http://www.vaanes.org/FORUMS/Herbal.pdf

You missed the point. Plants are an important source of medicine, but traditional use has turned out to be a poor way of discovering which are useful and for what - they are ineffective for most of the traditional uses listed and important effects are missed. The 30% is merely the number currently derived from plants, not the number whose use was informed by tradition.

Linda

[Marrena]

I didn't miss that point, I simply don't believe it. It's hard enough to get a study going with huge amounts of anecdotal evidence, I know that firsthand. Big Pharma isn't intelligent enough to test every plant for everything. They spend all their money on marketing and sales reps, and rest on the backs of herbalists.

[fls]

I didn't miss that point, I simply don't believe it. It's hard enough to get a study going with huge amounts of anecdotal evidence, I know that firsthand. Big Pharma isn't intelligent enough to test every plant for everything. They spend all their money on marketing and sales reps, and rest on the backs of herbalists.

They no longer use the backs of herbalists because the yield was so low. Instead they screen plant extracts with cell models.

For example:

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/60/18/5052

"The Vinca alkaloids were isolated from the periwinkle plant, which originally attracted attention because of reported hypoglycemic properties. However, periwinkle extracts showed no antidiabetic action but were found to prolong the life of mice bearing a transplantable lymphocytic leukemia. This led to the identification of vincristine and vinblastine. Paclitaxel was isolated from the bark of the Pacific yew tree, an extract of which showed antineoplastic activity in the NCI3 large-scale screen."

Linda

[Mashuna]

I didn't miss that point, I simply don't believe it. It's hard enough to get a study going with huge amounts of anecdotal evidence, I know that firsthand. Big Pharma isn't intelligent enough to test every plant for everything. They spend all their money on marketing and sales reps, and rest on the backs of herbalists.

Do you have a particular reason for disbelieving this point? It's a fairly standard one, and the amounts pharma companies spend on R&D is well documented.

[catbasket]

Big Pharma isn't intelligent enough to test every plant for everything.

Big Pharma isn't stupid enough to test every plant for everything. There - fixed it for you. Or you might prefer rich ...

[Garrette]

I didn't miss that point, I simply don't believe it. It's hard enough to get a study going with huge amounts of anecdotal evidence, I know that firsthand. Big Pharma isn't intelligent enough to test every plant for everything. They spend all their money on marketing and sales reps, and rest on the backs of herbalists.Sigh...

Such silliness is to be expected from someone without intelligence but not someone with it as Marrena seems to have.

Pharma's largest cost is in personnel and production (not counting marketing personnel costs); second largest cost is in marketing; next is R&D. Put them together a different way and you see that the vast majority of Pharma's cost is in R&D combined with production of what R&D finds.

How do you recoup costs? You sell your product.

How are the products determined to be safe? Research and publication subject to independent scrutiny coupled with governmental oversight.

What happens when a Big Pharma drug is shown (or suspected) to be dangerous? It gets pulled and Pharma pays out.

Compare that to herbalists: No oversight, no review, no studies showing efficacy or safety at all, and no payouts.

Just like democracy, Big Pharma is the worst possible system except for all the others.

[Delvo]

Anyone who introduces the name "Big Pharma" into a conversation is demonstrating that (s)he is spectacularly unqualified to say anything at all about medicine.

[Mashuna]

Anyone who introduces the name "Big Pharma" into a conversation is demonstrating that (s)he is spectacularly unqualified to say anything at all about medicine.

I live in a rural area of Wales. There are quite a few Big Pharmas around here. I think it's all the manual labour that does it.

[Marrena]

They no longer use the backs of herbalists because the yield was so low. Instead they screen plant extracts with cell models.

For example:

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/60/18/5052

"The Vinca alkaloids were isolated from the periwinkle plant, which originally attracted attention because of reported hypoglycemic properties. However, periwinkle extracts showed no antidiabetic action but were found to prolong the life of mice bearing a transplantable lymphocytic leukemia. This led to the identification of vincristine and vinblastine. Paclitaxel was isolated from the bark of the Pacific yew tree, an extract of which showed antineoplastic activity in the NCI3 large-scale screen."

Linda

Baloney.

From wiki

Having been used as a folk remedy for centuries, studies in the 1950s revealed that C. roseus contained 70 alkaloids, many of which are biologically active. While initial studies for its use in diabetes mellitus were disappointing, the discovery that it caused myelosuppression (decreased activity of the bone marrow) led to its study in mice with leukemia, whose lifespan was prolonged by the use of a vinca preparation

They only started examining it for health benefits because it was already a folk remedy.

I'm biased here, from firsthand dealings with Big Pharma. I should probably recuse myself from this argument. For example, a Big Pharma rep (whom I cannot name because he had me sign an ironclad disclosure agreement) signed me up for testing my study at MGH, funding to be provided by his company. Then he said they decided not to test. Then I found out from other doctors (because the FSD community is rather tight-knit), that he was doctor-shopping for a study of my approach, behind my back. So I put it out into public domain as best I could so no method patent could be applied. But I am quite sure if he had been successful, it would have been the R&D of the Big Pharma lab credited with the discovery.

I'm glad they're finally researching anthrax for cancer.

Anyhow, I've got an ax to grind. Pharma research is a dirty dirty dirty business.

[Marrena]

Anyone who introduces the name "Big Pharma" into a conversation is demonstrating that (s)he is spectacularly unqualified to say anything at all about medicine.

Now you've got me angry. Make fun of my woo all you want.

Screw this, I'm out of here. I'll come back for the results of the test.

[Professor Yaffle]

But it rather scuppers your idea that traditional methods of discovery are any good at finding the truth. As has been pointed out the vast majority of herbs are not effective for the indication they were used for traditionally. Yet for centuries people continued (and in some cases still continue) to believe that they were. It is extremely easy to be fooled when you don't use a scientific method to eliminate the types of things that fool us.

[Professor Yaffle]

Whenever I hear the term Big Pharma - I can't help but imagine pig farmers.

[Lisa Simpson]

Whenever I hear the term Big Pharma - I can't help but imagine pig farmers.

Brain : You are my manager Colonel Pinky. You discovered me playing guitar on the front porch of my humble pig farm. Any questions?

Pinky : Oh just one. When you farm humble pigs , how far apart do you have to plant them?

[fls]

Baloney.

They only started examining it for health benefits because it was already a folk remedy.

Yup. It was one of the many plant extracts that were already in use where the information that had been gathered through traditional use was useless. And the second plant extract in the paragraph I quoted hadn't even been noticed by the folk. It turns out that rather than distinguishing between plant extracts already in use and those not in use, that it's better to test them all. It was examples like that ("already a folk remedy" provided no useful information) that demonstrated the backs of herbalists were without any further merit.

I'm biased here, from firsthand dealings with Big Pharma. I should probably recuse myself from this argument. For example, a Big Pharma rep (whom I cannot name because he had me sign an ironclad disclosure agreement) signed me up for testing my study at MGH, funding to be provided by his company. Then he said they decided not to test. Then I found out from other doctors (because the FSD community is rather tight-knit), that he was doctor-shopping for a study of my approach, behind my back. So I put it out into public domain as best I could so no method patent could be applied. But I am quite sure if he had been successful, it would have been the R&D of the Big Pharma lab credited with the discovery.

I'm glad they're finally researching anthrax for cancer.

Anyhow, I've got an ax to grind. Pharma research is a dirty dirty dirty business.

And this is relevant to your claim that traditional use provides any useful information how?

And have you looked into the Big SCAM industry? They leave Big Pharma in the dust.

Linda

[AndyD]

Having been used as a folk remedy for centuries, studies in the 1950s revealed that C. roseus contained 70 alkaloids, many of which are biologically active. While initial studies for its use in diabetes mellitus were disappointing, the discovery that it caused myelosuppression (decreased activity of the bone marrow) led to its study in mice with leukemia, whose lifespan was prolonged by the use of a vinca preparation

I don't get this defence. If the prior use of a plant was ultimately irrelevant in terms of the uses it could potentially have (discovered later through actual science) then gardeners are also responsible for modern medicine because they too use plants for a variety of purposes, though not necessarily of any medicinal value.

For example, the opening line could read "Having been used as an ornamental potted plant for centuries, studies in the 1950s revealed that [plant A] contained 70 alkaloids..." This doesn't mean the avid gardeners were responsible for what science later discovered.

They only started examining it for health benefits because it was already a folk remedy.

That's an assertion which isn't obviously supported by the statement you quoted and suggests that no plant (or anything else I'd assume) which did not enjoy use as a folk remedy has ever been examined by science in order to ascertain health benefits. So I wonder where the 70% come from that aren't related to old herbal remedies?

[RichardR]

You are setting up straw man arguments, RichardR. You asked how the ancients derived astrology and I explained it. No, you didn't. Not at all. You explained that the ancients would have been able to observe and record celestial events, but not how they worked out the detailed rules of astrology like the actual one I quoted (not a straw man - an actual example from Rob Hand, a leading astrologer).

How did anyone figure out that Saturn conjunct the Moon in the Fourth House indicates a difficult early life and the likelihood of a parent who was not very nurturing? If you say that current tests with CPI type personality tests aren't good enough to do this, and if double-blind tests like Shawn Carlson's don't work, how did anyone ever figure out the above rule (and the hundreds of others)? What method did they use and why can't we use it now to get the same results?

Isn't this consistent with them just making it up? If not, why not?

[Marrena]

Of the many types of alkaloids found in the plant, an ability to decrease blood sugar levels has been observed in some,

http://www.herbs2000.com/herbs/herbs_periwinkle.htm

[RichardR]

When we started down this red herring, I asked specifically:

Well for one, I would need evidence that the majority of those herbs do what it is claimed they do.Note - what it is claimed they do. According to your link, this is what what it is claimed this herbal remedy does:

Different health disorders have been traditionally treated using herbal remedies made from the periwinkle plant. These have included problems such as memory loss to even toothache and other complaints such as circulatory problems to persistent inflammation of the intestinal region.
This is what it has been actually shown to do (http://www.drugdigest.org/DD/PrintablePages/herbMonograph/0,11475,4108,00.html):

A few studies of injectable and oral Catharanthus roseus in laboratory animals have shown some antidiabetic effects, but no human studies have found significant reductions in blood sugar after Catharanthus roseus was taken by mouth. Catharanthus roseus has some diuretic action, meaning that it may promote the loss of urine from the body. This effect may help to relieve high blood pressure, but other diuretics are both safer and more effective to use. The high risk of serious side effects from Catharanthus roseus makes taking it inadvisable.
Summary:

Currently, the use of Catharanthus roseus is not recommended due to the risk of severe side effects from taking it. Chemicals derived from it are used in injected prescription-only anticancer drugs.
I don't see anything about memory loss, toothache or circulatory problems. You are demonstrating my point, which is that the ancients were wrong in most of what they thought.

[Marrena]

"These researchers started to study the properties of the plant and tried to analyze its anecdotal anti-diabetic abilities - the main use for the herb in Jamaica.

....

Of the many types of alkaloids found in the plant, an ability to decrease blood sugar levels has been observed in some,"

[RichardR]

"These researchers started to study the properties of the plant and tried to analyze its anecdotal anti-diabetic abilities - the main use for the herb in Jamaica.

....

Of the many types of alkaloids found in the plant, an ability to decrease blood sugar levels has been observed in some,"

And yet, "a few studies of injectable and oral Catharanthus roseus in laboratory animals have shown some antidiabetic effects, but no human studies have found significant reductions in blood sugar after Catharanthus roseus was taken by mouth."

Back to astrology, still no explanation for how the detailed rules were derived. Aren't the rules of astrology consistent with their just being made up?

[Marrena]

http://books.google.com/books?id=qQ2OY9GF41wC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=ajmalicine+periwinkle+circulatory&source=web&ots=2rxbQX8LF1&sig=Abn16uLMWNW6LvmbvN6pCVrW7sQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

"Ajmalicine is an antihypertensive drug used in the treatment of circulatory diseases."

[Moochie]

I don't know, during my second birth I remember there was an extra nurse in the delivery room and it seemed her entire job was to stand there and watch the clock.

I think they're all watching the clock, looking forward to the shift being over. The one you noticed was just more obvious about it. :)


M.

[RichardR]

Still no explanation for how the detailed rules of astrology were derived. Aren't the rules of astrology consistent with their just being made up?

[politas]

I certainly hope this link puts this ridiculous argument to rest

http://www.health.qld.gov.au/pccm/pdfs/paed/4.12_Norm_Lab.pdf

It's a manual for doctors on labor and delivery--Australian, so this isn't just an American practice

page 356, one of the checkboxes, "Look at the clock, noting time of birth."

I note that it is a Queensland government website. I also note that on my Queensland birth certificate, there is no time of birth, only a date. This may have changed sometime in the past 39 years, though.

In any case, I would think that most people in the age brackets you were after do not have an official "time of birth" on their birth certificates, due to it having absolutely no legal relevance.

[Marrena]

Now you've got me angry. Make fun of my woo all you want.

Screw this, I'm out of here. I'll come back for the results of the test.

just had to supply some links there

[Pixel42]

Oh fer cryin' out loud.

Jackalgirl, have you received everyone's choice yet? If not, how about a status report, i.e x picked correct out of y so far received?

[Kuko 4000]

OT (malaria discussion):

Kuko_4000 -

"artemisinin" see Wellcome Trust article (http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/Media-office/Press-releases/2005/WTX026500.htm)


eta - press release, not article.

Thanks Snow, that sounds excellent, is it the best medicine for severe Malaria now? That's how I understood it anyways.

[Lanzy]

The point was, birth certificates don't record time, regardless of what post-birth tests are carried out.


I guess sometimes they do. Mine clearly says the date, year, location and birth time of 4:20 PM. Well over 5 decades ago in tennessee, but still it is there.

[Jackalgirl]

Brain : You are my manager Colonel Pinky. You discovered me playing guitar on the front porch of my humble pig farm. Any questions?

Pinky : Oh just one. When you farm humble pigs , how far apart do you have to plant them?

"You will call me your ruler, I'll be king of the worrrrrrrrrld!"

[Jackalgirl]

Folks, if you're going to argue the merits of folk medicine vice (or even hand-in-hand with) science, could you do it in another thread?

[Jackalgirl]

Okay, here are the results:

Respondant DoB Reading # Reading Choice
17FEB1954 1 6
21OCT1974 2 0
21SEP1957 3 6
27FEB1962 4 7
01JUN1953 5 0
04FEB1976 6 0
01APR1971 7 6
14FEB1961 8 9
09SEP1961 9 8
19DEC1959 10 4

Result: 0/10

Note that three people felt that they simply couldn't choose any of the readings as little to nothing in any of the readings applied to them. Of the remaining seven, five people said that they found themselves having to choose the least inaccurate reading. One person said "close" but gave a breakdown, and all in all most of the reading was not applicable. Only one person felt that the reading was eerily correct -- participant #1, who said that if reading #6 was his, he'd be impressed. Sadly, his reading was #1.

Note that three people chose reading #6. Marrena noted that this was the worst reading of the bunch within the reading. I removed that line so as not to prejudice people against choosing that reading. She also referred to each participant as "Bachelor #x" (where x was the number of the reading); I removed those references as well -- clearly, this was a "Dating Game" reference, but again I didn't want married people to say "I'm not a bachelor!" and therefore be biased against the readings.

Chance of being correct on chance alone: 1/10, so these results are actually worse than chance.

[Jackalgirl]

I would like to post the readings themselves, but am still waiting on some folks for permission. So hang on for an update.

[Marrena]

I yield the field.

Thank you!

Don't bother with posting the readings if they were that bad! Unless for amusement purposes only. :D

[rsaavedra]

I don't know about "easily" but yes, astrology should be able to do the test you suggested.
Should then... Hmmm... So it's just a personal belief of yours that Astrology can or should be able to predict IQ then; nothing you can provide any substantial basis for though. Am I right?

Let me guess, that one has been done too.

Hey good guess, you got this one! ;) Even though you might have checked the links already provided by some others in this thread:

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/what_do_you_mea.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1439101/Astrologers-fail-to-predict-proof-they-are-wrong.html

[Lisa Simpson]

I yield the field.

Thank you!

Don't bother with posting the readings if they were that bad! Unless for amusement purposes only. :D

So you will not be doing the rest of the readings?

[Olowkow]

Thanks to Jackalgirl for her skillful management of this. Unfortunately it has very likely been a gross waste of her time, as I doubt that any minds will be changed concerning the usefulness of astrology.

There will still be an endless stream of those who will now call this test "stupid" and refer to those involved as "idiots", just as in the past, who don't know enough about the correct way too proceed as an astrologer.

I wonder just what it will take to debunk this stuff once and for all. It would be very enlightening and useful if this contestant explained how her opinion has changed, and how she will attempt, in the future, to help others dig their way out of their dependence on this onerous superstition.

[Ladewig]

They had to pay special attention anyhow to the heavens to know when to plant crops, etc., and over time if they noticed that the crops were especially good, say, when Jupiter was trining Venus in the night sky, they paid attention.

What sign the moon is in and its effects on crops and weather has been the the mainstay of almanacs for hundreds of years, along with other planetary positions. Yes, their accuracy rate is below 25% on day-to-day, I don't need the link, thank you. But general trends I think they are useful.

I'm not saying here that they are right, I'm just saying that if they were right, that that's how they did it in the beginning. Natal charts came later

But they weren't right. There is no combination of planets and stars that produce good crops. Therefore we are left with absolutely no evidence of how early people discovered astrology.

They were making things up on the fly: That planet is red, blood is red, therefore that planet has something to do with the shedding of blood. That planet moves fast, messengers move fast, therefore that planet is somehow related to messengers. The more one studies the origins of astrology, the more absurd it appears.

[Delvo]

Okay, here are the results...Intersting... your tab-table works in the composition window but compresses the tabs to single spaces in the thread view...

Note that three people chose reading #6.I think it would be interesting to have that one posted here to look at possible reasons why that one was more likely to be picked than others.

Marrena noted that this was the worst reading of the bunch within the reading.Worst how? Least confidence in its accuracy/applicability? Or most unfortunate life for someone to be stuck with? Or something else?

[Marrena]

So you will not be doing the rest of the readings?
Of course not! I'm not masochistic! When I did this before a few years ago, I wasn't very good. Now I am. I'm good enough to categorically state that astrology is useless.

I deliberately tried to be as non-coldreading as I could be, offensive, so that the only way a person would choose is if it absolutely belonged to them. I deliberately picked very unusual aspects of the charts that had pretty set interpretations, for example a water Saturn in the 12th house almost always indicates depression, particularly if it is heavily aspected. I was also surprised at the number of unusual formations in the chart, I think three had tight T-squares, one also having a Saturn singleton, which is about the most difficult chart a person can have. And two yods, and one grand trine! And so much was hitting the eighth house, house of sex, birth, death, transformation and other people's money.

Not that anybody cares, but that's unusual. I was worried they'd be bland charts with nothing standing out.

The only place where I felt a little unsure was with the prevalence of Eris, obviously Eris is a new planet and somewhat unknown and it was a strong influence in several of the charts. But not unsure enough to do that badly on the test!

[Olowkow]

Intersting... your tab-table works in the composition window but compresses the tabs to single spaces in the thread view...


I think those are just spaces, and the thread view removes all non essential spaces.

[Marrena]

Intersting... your tab-table works in the composition window but compresses the tabs to single spaces in the thread view...

I think it would be interesting to have that one posted here to look at possible reasons why that one was more likely to be picked than others.

Worst how? Least confidence in its accuracy/applicability? Or most unfortunate life for someone to be stuck with? Or something else?

I had least confidence in that one, so I made it coldreadery. Clearly what this test proves is that cold reading works!

[Marrena]

Fair enough--to any astrologers out there, there were three tight T-squares, so I pointed out the hard work/bad luck in the house of the corner. And yods are very distinctive, particularly with the point falling in the eighth house--that's obsession with sex or catching AIDS or I will eat my hat. There's just no two ways about that one, a yod is the configuration of obsession.

And a grand fire trine with Eris on one--that person should have seen their luck dramatically change for the better when Eris was discovered.

Those are pretty unequivocal astrological things, and they were tight too.

The one that really had me mystified--all the charts were the charts of skeptics, the woo level was very low, except one chart. That alone should have clued me in, because a woo chart like that wouldn't belong here as a regular.

[AntiTelharsic]

Chance of being correct on chance alone: 1/10, so these results are actually worse than chance.

The standard deviation is about 0.95, though, so the result 0 isn't very far from the expectation of 1. That's definitely within tolerance for random chance, so I wouldn't say Marrena did worse than chance. Indeed, this test couldn't have detected worse-than-random performance to a statistically significant level.

I'd like to say thanks to Marrena, the volunteers, and Jackalgirl. That was fun.

Is there any chance someone would write up the test specification and results, including the readings and any commentary which any of the participants would like to add?

[Drs_Res]

Intersting... your tab-table works in the composition window but compresses the tabs to single spaces in the thread view...



The table is your friend. Reformat below.

Okay, here are the results:

Respondant DoB|Reading #|Reading Choice
17FEB1954|1|6
21OCT1974|2|0
21SEP1957|3|6
27FEB1962|4|7
01JUN1953|5|0
04FEB1976|6|0
01APR1971|7|6
14FEB1961|8|9
09SEP1961|9|8
19DEC1959|10|4

Result: 0/10

[AntiTelharsic]

And a grand fire trine with Eris on one--that person should have seen their luck dramatically change for the better when Eris was discovered.

Wouldn't Eris have affected them the same, regardless of when or even if it was discovered?

[rsaavedra]

so I wouldn't say Marrena did worse than chance.
In all fairness the result is not just Marrena's, it's also the subjects'.

Here's what astrologers could argue, and to some extent they would have a point, I think.

Even if Astrology worked, and the astrologer did a good enough job, people in general, even with the best of intents, could still very well have severe limitations to pick the right interpretation of their natal chart among other interpretations, as in this test. Simply because people in general don't necessarily know the true essence of their being (that would be the core of their argument, I'd think: that their true essence is indeed reflected in their chart, and it's possibly appropriately expressed by the astrologer, but people just don't know about their true essence.) Hence, evaluating astrology by this kind of test is absolutely futile, it's simply the wrong approach.

An analogy. Bring this ten people images of their DNA fingerprints in the appropiate format, and ask them to pick their true DNA reading. Unless they are microbiologists doing DNA analysis, and unless they've seen their patterns before, they won't be able to pick the right one. They simply can't read them properly. Even if the fingerprints were prepared 100% correctly. But a zero success in this kind of test could not disprove DNA analysis at all.

-Of course, I know the difference between DNA analysis and Astrology, but my point goes with the argument about the wrong testing approach.

[Piggy]

I'm good enough to categorically state that astrology is useless.

Wow.

You've got my respect, for what that's worth.

NOW I'm impressed!

[IXP]

The one that really had me mystified--all the charts were the charts of skeptics, the woo level was very low, except one chart. That alone should have clued me in, because a woo chart like that wouldn't belong here as a regular.
Amazing! Once again, astrologly confirms what you already knew: that most of the people on this forum are sceptics.

Let's try another test, get 5 sceptics from this forum and 5 woos from one of the woo forums and see how well you can distinguish them.

IXP

[Olowkow]

In all fairness the result is not just Marrena's, it's also the subjects'.

Here's what astrologers could argue, and to some extent they would have a point, I think.

Even if Astrology worked, and the astrologer did a good enough job, people in general, even with the best of intents, could still very well have severe limitations to pick the right interpretation of their natal chart among other interpretations, as in this test. Simply because people in general don't necessarily know the true essence of their being (that would be the core of their argument, I'd think: that their true essence is indeed reflected in their chart, but people don't know about their true essence.) Hence, evaluating astrology by this kind of test is absolutely futile, it's simply the wrong approach.

An analogy. Bring this ten people images of their DNA fingerprints in the appropiate format, and ask them to pick their true DNA reading. Unless they are microbiologists doing DNA analysis, and unless they've seen their patterns before, they won't be able to pick the right one. They simply can't read them properly. Even if the fingerprints were prepared 100% correctly. But a zero success in this kind of test could not disprove DNA analysis at all.

Of course, I know the difference between DNA analysis and Astrology, but my point goes with the argument about the wrong testing approach.

And I'm sure some will argue just that. See post 218. So what is the point of doing it at all then? If people don't know their own experiences and can't honestly evaluate their own personality, why bother telling them what the freaking stars or planets' effects are?

Astrology needs to be put to rest in my opinion. Especially in the case of someone running around advising folks what dangerous cultish products to put into their bodies, claiming all kinds of imagined sexual prowess, and claiming to be a "scientist".

For some reason, this is just particularly maddening to me, even more so than religious nonsense. Where are all the skeptics??

[Piggy]

Clearly what this test proves is that cold reading works!

Y'know, every time we get into one of these threads, there are folks chiming in saying "What's the use?"

This is why it's worth doing.

Thanks, Marrena. You proved yourself more than a cut above astroman!

[Marrena]

Amazing! Once again, astrologly confirms what you already knew: that most of the people on this forum are sceptics.

Let's try another test, get 5 sceptics from this forum and 5 woos from one of the woo forums and see how well you can distinguish them.

IXP

That's not what I said. And it's not like that anyhow, there are actual rules in the thing. Water is the woo element, particularly Pisces/Neptune influences, the opposite element is earth. Skeptics are particularly associated with a Capricorn/Saturn flavor. A lot of Saturn influence and Earth-sign moons in that set--astrologers I believe would agree that's a skeptical note. But the chances of an earth moon are obviously one in four, so it hardly proves anything, I wasn't using that as proof. If anything, there absolutely should not be a watery chart in that group and there was, which would prove astrology is useless.

Have I mentioned astrology is useless? Rsaavedra, that was very chivalrous of you, but there is no way that person who has a yod doesn't know they have a yod. The yod is known as the Finger of God, and astrologers joke that it's the middle finger. A yod causes obsession that interferes with daily life, it disrupts, it possesses. It's not something a person can overlook. Even if they are fighting it and trying to seem normal, they know they are fighting it.

[rsaavedra]

If people don't know their own experiences and can't honestly evaluate their own personality, why bother telling them what the freaking stars or planets' effects are?
Well, asking why bother is asking from the wrong side. It's not that astrologers bother to give their readings, it's people in general who eagerly seek astrologer's readings.

Astrology might be so appealing precisely because people in general don't really know themselves. So for most, whatever Astrology says fits well the profile of an impartial advising oracle. (In their minds, it's whatever the stars say after all, not what someone thinks.)

[Marrena]

And I'm sure some will argue just that. See post 218. So what is the point of doing it at all then? If people don't know their own experiences and can't honestly evaluate their own personality, why bother telling them what the freaking stars or planets' effects are?

Astrology needs to be put to rest in my opinion. Especially in the case of someone running around advising folks what dangerous cultish products to put into their bodies, claiming all kinds of imagined sexual prowess, and claiming to be a "scientist".

For some reason, this is just particularly maddening to me, even more so than religious nonsense. Where are all the skeptics??

I will fight about this. I've already got called out in another thread for advertising, so if you want me to go away, I will, but this is not something recreational for me like astrology is. I'm dead serious about it and will go to the wall with you. The only reason I'm recommending fish oil is because with the oceans as polluted as they are, it's dangerous to eat fatty fish every day because of the mercury--fish oil has the mercury filtered out.

This guy says the levels I recommend are safe, and he would know:

http://www.fabresearch.org/view_item.aspx?item_id=545

He's been helping me try to get funding.

This is my mentor:

http://www.twshf.org/bio_dfurguson.html

This is my PI, if I ever do get funding:

http://www.twshf.org/bio_shabsigh.html

[Olowkow]

Well, asking why bother is asking from the wrong side. It's not that astrologers bother to give their readings, it's people in general who eagerly seek astrologer's readings.

Astrology might be so appealing precisely because people in general don't really know themselves. So for most, whatever Astrology says fits well the profile of an impartial advising oracle. (In their minds, it's whatever the stars say after all, not what someone thinks.)

Ok, I get it. Very good. I hadn't really thought of it exactly that way. It would seem then that this is what makes astrology all that much more insidious. Very much like God telling people what to do, instead of their using their own instincts and good judgment.

Not sure if Piggy misunderstood, but I am not advocating not testing astrology, not at all.

[Marrena]

And IMAGINED is not the case! Ask the friend of Betty Dodson here--I went to her apartment and demonstrated my ability to her. And if Dr. Beverly Whipple wants to hook me up to a machine I can show her too. Bring it on.

[rsaavedra]

Even if they are fighting it and trying to seem normal, they know they are fighting it.
Yes, they might know it, but unconsciously, not consciously (so would astrologers argue.) So people might not be able to identify themselves with your description of such and such effect of said yod in their charts. Same for other aspects.

Have you ever heard of how hard it can be to some alcoholics, or obssesed/compulsive people to truly realize that they do have a problem?

I'm totally being devil's advocate, but I'm trying to be critical, and that argument would have a point. Making readings and asking people to pick the interpretations is just not the right way to debunk it.

[Marrena]

Well, to continue that argument, maaaybe a person might be so lacking in self awareness that they ignore the yod, although do that long enough and the yod will cause chronic illness according to astrology. But you can't hide a yod from other people. People with yods are big freaks (I can say that because I have one). Ask the other posters if the men with yods are obsessive. :D

[Marrena]

Y'know, every time we get into one of these threads, there are folks chiming in saying "What's the use?"

This is why it's worth doing.

Thanks, Marrena. You proved yourself more than a cut above astroman!

Thank you. I am feeling very disoriented right now, it's almost like a language, it's internal in me now. I don't think I can get it out, I've gotten used to thinking in these channels, but if I recognize it's an imaginary psychological construct that gives form to my perceptions, I can benefit from it without making an ass of myself, or at least more of an ass than I already am.

[rsaavedra]

Well, to continue that argument, maaaybe a person might be so lacking in self awareness that they ignore the yod, although do that long enough and the yod will cause chronic illness according to astrology. But you can't hide a yod from other people. People with yods are big freaks (I can say that because I have one). Ask the other posters if the men with yods are obsessive. :D
Well, yods could then be good candidates for a test similar to the one I proposed for Mars-Saturn related transits and injuries.

Check statistics of psychiatric patients with obsessive compulsive disorder, and see if they have higher incidence of specific yods in their charts, compared to people with no record of psychiatric disorders or obsessive behavior.

See, in such tests the astrologer or people's reading and self-knowledge play no role at all. It's just one aspect of astrology against the reality it is supposed to be correlated with. Such tests would have true debunking weaponry.

The only pending issue would be the agreement between astrologers with respect to whatever specific yods would correspond to. Yods can be caused by different combinations of planets, each of them over rather different combinations of signs/elements over combinations of houses. So with quite that many possible yods, I doubt that astrologers would simply endorse your simplistic interpretation: yods --> obsession / big freak.

Also, are other astrological things besides yods related to obsession and big freaks?

Moreover, astrologers might disagree about the strength of the yod with respect to other hard aspects. For instance, a so called "cosmic cross" (four planets forming basically a perfect square on the chart, creating four mutually reinforcing quadratures + 2 perpendicular oppositions all at once). Point is, given other aspects, the "big freak" nature supposedly induced by a yod might be completely overcome and pass unnoticed.

So on second thought, I think Yods after all might not be good candidates for the kind of test I propose.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Still no explanation for how the detailed rules of astrology were derived. Aren't the rules of astrology consistent with their just being made up?

The only thing I can see that distinguishes it from purely arbitrary invention are principles of sympathetic magic. If we name that red planet for a war god, then we give it attributes related to that--anger, violence, etc. If that constellation looks like a scale, we attribute ideas of balance and justice to it.

In a way, Marrena is right that the same principle (sympathetic magic) was at work with traditional herbal medicine. A plant that has very pronounced nodes that look very much like finger bone joints must be good for arthritis. (ETA: I suppose that is as much an example of the doctrine of signatures--an equally magical concept.)

The main difference between herbal meds and astrology is that there was at least some amount of trial and error involved. (People wouldn't continue taking something that kills them in the false belief that it's a remedy.) In astrology, there really is no sense that any of this came about from trial and error or testing of any kind. The astrologer's role has always been similar to a confidence man in that he had to present his pronouncement with complete certainty. There was nothing like testing and observing for correlation. (I suppose in folk medicine, a lot of shamans probably behaved the same way, but again within limits--you really wouldn't give those deadly berries to someone after you knew that they're that toxic.)

Another huge difference is that there is a discernible possible mechanism of cause and effect between something you and ingest and your health. There is nothing like that with astrology. (See the "Farce of Nature" section in Phil Plait's fine essay (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html#force) for a discussion of this point.)

[Moochie]

All said and done, how do profilers of criminals do in these sorts of tests, if at all. Seems to me that the popular conception of such profilers borders on a belief in woo abilities. How much of profiling is science (if at all), how much is just keen character appraisal, and how much is woo (again, if at all)?


Or is this another thread?


M.

[Olowkow]

All said and done, how do profilers of criminals do in these sorts of tests, if at all. Seems to me that the popular conception of such profilers borders on a belief in woo abilities. How much of profiling is science (if at all), how much is just keen character appraisal, and how much is woo (again, if at all)?

Or is this another thread?

M.

It would make a very interesting thread. There may be some woo, but from what I understand, most of it is well researched patterns of behavior. For instance, the type of killing, overkill, for example is typical of someone who hates the victim. "Zone of comfort", has been shown to be very useful in locating an area where the killer lives. "Inexperienced killers" have certain traits that characterize them. "Organized" vs "disorganized". Off topic but fascinating stuff.

[Ladewig]

I deliberately tried to be as non-coldreading as I could be, offensive, so that the only way a person would choose is if it absolutely belonged to them.

I read all ten and will back up Marrena's claim. There was not a lot of cold reading in these horoscopes.

[Piggy]

Not sure if Piggy misunderstood, but I am not advocating not testing astrology, not at all.

Sorry, Olowkow, I didn't mean to direct anything at you. Did I give that impression? If so, I apologize. I was mostly referring to hecklers on other similar threads, actually -- that is, if I understand correctly which of my posts you're referencing.

Cheers.

[Piggy]

Thank you. I am feeling very disoriented right now, it's almost like a language, it's internal in me now. I don't think I can get it out, I've gotten used to thinking in these channels, but if I recognize it's an imaginary psychological construct that gives form to my perceptions, I can benefit from it without making an ass of myself, or at least more of an ass than I already am.

Hey, been there. (And probably will be again. And again.)

But it's ok. I mean, when you come thru the other side, it's still the same world, you just have a different outlook on it.

Scary, but liberating, you know what I mean?

The fact that you're adaptable, tho... that's a good sign of a survivor, someone who'll benefit from the transition and thrive!

In my experience, when we give up old ways of looking at things that turn out not to work so well, what we discover is something much more interesting and worthwhile to explore, which we never would have found if we'd stayed caught up in our previous entanglements.

[Olowkow]

Sorry, Olowkow, I didn't mean to direct anything at you. Did I give that impression? If so, I apologize. I was mostly referring to hecklers on other similar threads, actually -- that is, if I understand correctly which of my posts you're referencing.

Cheers.

No problem. :)Just this one after my rant about the uselessness of astrology, not its testing.

Piggy: Y'know, every time we get into one of these threads, there are folks chiming in saying "What's the use?"

This is why it's worth doing.


I didn't want it to be misunderstood that I was saying that I was against testing astrology.

[Piggy]

All said and done, how do profilers of criminals do in these sorts of tests, if at all. Seems to me that the popular conception of such profilers borders on a belief in woo abilities. How much of profiling is science (if at all), how much is just keen character appraisal, and how much is woo (again, if at all)?


Or is this another thread?


M.

Profiling, when it's done right, is admittedly not a hard science, but it has a pretty good track record.

Classic profiling applies only to serial murders, and consists of discerning those qualities of a set of crimes above and beyond the MO.

So the type of victim, method of killing, dumping location, that kind of thing, that's all MO.

A profile will identify trends that are continual even if the MO changes -- e.g., does the killer humiliate the victim, is there a need to take certain kinds of objects, does the killer want to taunt law enforcement, etc.

Its primary usefulness is in determining whether a set of murders is, in fact, a series in the first place.

Now that there's a body of work, so to speak, on serial murderers, it's possible in some cases to work up probable descriptions of the likely perpetrator, and this is what has become synonymous in the pop media with "profiling" -- e.g., the killer is a middle-aged white male who lives with his mother and is obsessively neat.

That kind of theorizing can be useful, but it's gotta be taken with more than a grain of salt. I don't think anyone in law enforcement would abandon a good lead because it didn't match that kind of theoretical speculation.

[rsaavedra]

Aren't the rules of astrology consistent with their just being made up?

Some of you guys have put a lot of analysis to the sympathetic magic and symbolic thing and what not. And maybe you are all right. I personally have my own Occam's Razor-based simpler explanation of the origins of Astrology.

The origins of Astrology may have nothing to do with a healthy mind.

Think for a moment about the movie Beautiful Mind. If you didn't see it, go see it. John Nash in Beautiful Mind could see patterns everywhere, day after day. He didn't really need to look too much for them; the patterns just seemed to jump at him and scream out loud at him: "Here we are!" But there were actually none. His mind was ill.

Even in healthy conditions, people have several cognitive biases to mess around with observations and beliefs; that could be pushed way past beyond rational quite too easily, especially in a "pattern finder extraordinaire" unhealthy mind, when it sets its gears to it; possibly with the help of some non-so-critical listeners/followers.

That's my theory, for what it's worth: It all might have started with one and just one crazy dude.