Convincing a friend about Astrology.

[tyoungblood@bellsouth.net]

Hi all,

My name is Tony Youngblood. This is my first post on the JREF forum. I've been an avid reader of Skeptical Inquirer, Free Inquiry, Scientific American, Discover and Skeptic magazine for some time now. I'm a songwriter, a filmmaker, and I help run my family's hardware store in Mayfield, KY, USA.

At any rate, I'm posting this because I'd like help convincing my friend that astrology is NOT a science, CAN NOT be a science, and has no ability to predict events, personalities, etc. He took offence to my saying that "astrology is dumb," and, fed up, he wrote a long blog about it on a public website.

I'm having a little trouble wrapping myself around the best way to refute his statements. I'm posting his blog below. I would appreciate your thoughts. Also, if you'd like to write him a direct reply, I'll post it to his blog, giving you credit. Thanks!

Tony

"As some of my readers and friends may have noticed, my good pal Tony really doesn't like astrology. Or tattoos, but that's a different matter entirely. Suffice it to say that Tony will never get a tattoo of a natal chart on his bicep, or anywhere else on his body.

Anyhow, I've heard enough. It's time to speak... err, write. I'm getting tired of all this "double-blind test" result waving, and general "I've got science on my side" attitude. As if I don't know about science? Ha! So let me lay it all out for you:

The current problem with astrology is not that the data is wrong, but that astrologers differ in how to utilise it, occasionally to the point that astrologers may even differ over ideas about what data is even relavant. In any studies that have been done so far, the researchers have routinely screwed up on one main point-- mainly, that they're trying to see if all the "results" are the same as one another, rather than accepting (like in many other scientific disciplines) that interpretations of data will vary.

Its not much different from scientists who, working from the same data, are able to come up with conflicting concepts of human evolution, global warming, or even relatively simple matters like the weather. It would be silly, and unscientific, to cast the whole of meteorology aside because of so many wrong "predictions". Simply put, there's a ******** of data, and it can be hard to make sense of what is most important, and what it all means. For any reasonably minded person, this just means that meteorology (and by comparison, astrology) have some ways to come before being as well-defined as something like... well, hell.. I'm having trouble coming up with an example here. Last I checked, most major scientific disciplines were engaged in some pretty serious debates. Take psychiatry, for instance. I'm sure that Tony wouldn't go on about how psychiatry is a pseudo-science, just because different doctors could diagnose one patient in so many different ways; even with completely different treatments, outcomes, etcetera!

Where Tony and I differ most is that I'm willing to acknowledge that there is a germ of something valuable within astrology. I think that given further study, and with some good scientific minds on the job, there might be a future for it alongside other disciplines. It's sort of funny how it's been forgotten-- I think mostly, because it was the branch of science most challenging to the Church in days past.

Historically, astrology was the final step in a liberal arts, university education. Astrology was the reason the ancients took the time to develop a calendar in the first place-- with incredibly complex and accurate time systems being developed by the Mayans, the Egyptians, the Chinese, and the Abyssinians in order to get their hands on the most accurate data for astrological use. It seems downright foolhardy to spit on a discipline studied by geniuses like Johannes Kepler, Tycho Brahe, Plato, and Leonardo da Vinci. Sure they had different concepts of the universe, and radically different understandings of the workings of the cosmos-- they didn't even have knowledge of the planets we have today! But on the other hand, early scientists didn't have knowledge of many things we have today, and were still able to make many important discoveries, and advance the knowledge around them. That's what science is all about-- furthering knowledge, not shutting it down.

So yeah, there's a lot of ******** surrounding astrology. There's con artists, hucksters, and opportunists. They're everywhere. Look at a horoscope-- according to your local newspaper, one-twelvth of the world's population is engaged in the same "you will find happiness" sort of vague activity on any given day. It's silly. To use the newspaper horoscope as an example of why we should abandon astrology is just as valid as saying that since Dear Abby's advice to someone was faulty, we might as well give up on sociology. Brushing this sort of obvious crap aside, and giving astrology a real shot-- like Gaguelin (whose seminal text concerning experiments linking biological data with astrological phenomenon sits on my bookshelf right now) will give us more to work with in order to formulate some real opinions.

Finally, let me say this: in my estimate, the universe is a mechanical place. As we gather more knowledge of it's workings, we will eventually be able to see the manner in which all things link with all others. Obviously, this is so, for how could anything within the universe not be affected (or affect) another part? In the universe's complexity, our limited scope as humans tends to perceive chaos and randomness. Logic tells me that this cannot be. In this way, I wonder if astrology isn't simply one of the ways in which we are able to look and see one of these links. Perhaps the movement of the cosmos is simply one of an infinite set of such linkages-- but possibly, one of the only that is large enough, and obvious enough, for us to perceive at the present time.

--DaveX"

[T'ai Chi]

You should point him towards the A+ work that CSICOP did long ago with the Mars effect stuff.

[Hindmost]

Hi and welcome to one of the only sane forums on the internet.:D

I wrote this quickly...but is falls under keeping things simple.

First find out why your friend is opposed to a double-blind test. He indicated in the post that results are not reproducible because of different interpretations of “data.” Ask for the data first--I have never seen an astrology database--but then I am not looking either. If results are not reproducible, then ask him how anyone on earth is going to know which answer is correct. If he indicates that you have to know which astrologer will provide the correct interpretation--ask him how to analyze that astrologer to insure the "readings" are correct. If that astrologer is correct in interpretation consistently, he/she would be able to pass a double blind test. Have the astrologer try and win the one million dollar JREF challenge. If you can't find an astrologer that is correct all the time...that means your friend is guessing at results and interpretation

Simple and straight forward. No matter what, results have to be reproducible. If I tell you that 50% of what is tell you is BS, how do you know which 50% is which.

On his scientific side...the scientists on global warming and other scientific areas have differing opinions due to the lack of data or the amount of error in the data that is available--not on the main scientific principles. (this is a very general statement...one can always find "greater disagreements")

glenn:boxedin:

[CFLarsen]

Tony,

Here is a list of useful articles:

Astrology loses - again (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/soccer2004.htm)
by Claus Larsen

Isaac Newton and Astrology: Witness for the Defence or for the Prosecution? (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/newton.htm)
by Robert H. van Gent

A Royal Wedding Littered With Celestial Failures (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/royalwedding.htm)
by Mogens Winther

Sun Sign (in)Compatibility (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/sunsigncomp.htm)
By Claus Larsen

Gravity it ain't... (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/gravity.htm)
By Claus Larsen

Did Robert Zoller Predict 9-11? (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/zoller911.htm)
By Claus Larsen

Readings from a chatroom (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/astrologyreadings.htm)
by Claus Larsen

Time is not on Astrology's side (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/astrotime.htm)
by Claus Larsen

Lion in the sky - or...? (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/leo-distance.htm)
by Claus Larsen

Guess the Celebrity! (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/celebrity.htm)
by Claus Larsen

Free horoscope! (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/freehoroscope.htm)
by Claus Larsen

[Psiload]

Hi all,

My name is Tony Youngblood. This is my first post on the JREF forum. I've been an avid reader of Skeptical Inquirer, Free Inquiry, Scientific American, Discover and Skeptic magazine for some time now. I'm a songwriter, a filmmaker, and I help run my family's hardware store in Mayfield, KY, USA.

At any rate, I'm posting this because I'd like help convincing my friend that astrology is NOT a science, CAN NOT be a science, and has no ability to predict events, personalities, etc. He took offence to my saying that "astrology is dumb," and, fed up, he wrote a long blog about it on a public website.

I'm having a little trouble wrapping myself around the best way to refute his statements. I'm posting his blog below. I would appreciate your thoughts. Also, if you'd like to write him a direct reply, I'll post it to his blog, giving you credit. Thanks!

Tony

"As some of my readers and friends may have noticed, my good pal Tony really doesn't like astrology. Or tattoos, but that's a different matter entirely. Suffice it to say that Tony will never get a tattoo of a natal chart on his bicep, or anywhere else on his body.

Anyhow, I've heard enough. It's time to speak... err, write. I'm getting tired of all this "double-blind test" result waving, and general "I've got science on my side" attitude. As if I don't know about science? Ha! So let me lay it all out for you:

The current problem with astrology is not that the data is wrong, but that astrologers differ in how to utilise it, occasionally to the point that astrologers may even differ over ideas about what data is even relavant. In any studies that have been done so far, the researchers have routinely screwed up on one main point-- mainly, that they're trying to see if all the "results" are the same as one another, rather than accepting (like in many other scientific disciplines) that interpretations of data will vary.

Its not much different from scientists who, working from the same data, are able to come up with conflicting concepts of human evolution, global warming, or even relatively simple matters like the weather. It would be silly, and unscientific, to cast the whole of meteorology aside because of so many wrong "predictions". Simply put, there's a ******** of data, and it can be hard to make sense of what is most important, and what it all means. For any reasonably minded person, this just means that meteorology (and by comparison, astrology) have some ways to come before being as well-defined as something like... well, hell.. I'm having trouble coming up with an example here. Last I checked, most major scientific disciplines were engaged in some pretty serious debates. Take psychiatry, for instance. I'm sure that Tony wouldn't go on about how psychiatry is a pseudo-science, just because different doctors could diagnose one patient in so many different ways; even with completely different treatments, outcomes, etcetera!

Where Tony and I differ most is that I'm willing to acknowledge that there is a germ of something valuable within astrology. I think that given further study, and with some good scientific minds on the job, there might be a future for it alongside other disciplines. It's sort of funny how it's been forgotten-- I think mostly, because it was the branch of science most challenging to the Church in days past.

Historically, astrology was the final step in a liberal arts, university education. Astrology was the reason the ancients took the time to develop a calendar in the first place-- with incredibly complex and accurate time systems being developed by the Mayans, the Egyptians, the Chinese, and the Abyssinians in order to get their hands on the most accurate data for astrological use. It seems downright foolhardy to spit on a discipline studied by geniuses like Johannes Kepler, Tycho Brahe, Plato, and Leonardo da Vinci. Sure they had different concepts of the universe, and radically different understandings of the workings of the cosmos-- they didn't even have knowledge of the planets we have today! But on the other hand, early scientists didn't have knowledge of many things we have today, and were still able to make many important discoveries, and advance the knowledge around them. That's what science is all about-- furthering knowledge, not shutting it down.

So yeah, there's a lot of ******** surrounding astrology. There's con artists, hucksters, and opportunists. They're everywhere. Look at a horoscope-- according to your local newspaper, one-twelvth of the world's population is engaged in the same "you will find happiness" sort of vague activity on any given day. It's silly. To use the newspaper horoscope as an example of why we should abandon astrology is just as valid as saying that since Dear Abby's advice to someone was faulty, we might as well give up on sociology. Brushing this sort of obvious crap aside, and giving astrology a real shot-- like Gaguelin (whose seminal text concerning experiments linking biological data with astrological phenomenon sits on my bookshelf right now) will give us more to work with in order to formulate some real opinions.

Finally, let me say this: in my estimate, the universe is a mechanical place. As we gather more knowledge of it's workings, we will eventually be able to see the manner in which all things link with all others. Obviously, this is so, for how could anything within the universe not be affected (or affect) another part? In the universe's complexity, our limited scope as humans tends to perceive chaos and randomness. Logic tells me that this cannot be. In this way, I wonder if astrology isn't simply one of the ways in which we are able to look and see one of these links. Perhaps the movement of the cosmos is simply one of an infinite set of such linkages-- but possibly, one of the only that is large enough, and obvious enough, for us to perceive at the present time.

--DaveX"

All of DaveX's arguements defending astrology can also be applied to a defense for the "science" of alchemy. Both pursuits had brilliant minds applied the them (i.e. Sir Issac Newton- the vast majority of his life's work was dedicated to the study of alchemy), both spawned valid disciplines of science(astronomy from astrology, chemistry from alchemy), both refuse to bahave when subjected to the rigors of "the double blind test".

Is it downright foolhardy to spit on the disciplined study Sir Issac Newton devoted to alchemical study? Uhhhh... no it is not. Genius though he may have been, he was obviously pissing up a rope on that one.

I wonder, is DaveX also a staunch defender of the "science" of alchemy? I doubt it.

[rdtjr]

Badastronomy.com also has a great section dealing with astrology. You will find many, many good reasons why astrology simply can't work. Here is a real simple headscratcher for astrology believers though:

Astrologists incorporate newly discovered astronomical bodies such as large asteriods, comets, icy bodies out in the Kuiper belt, and even planets found around other stars into their charting systems. They are much more likely to do so when such a body is in the solar system and is either described as a "planetoid" or gets a catchy name like the asteroid Eros. The problem for them is this... suppose they are correct and those bodies somehow have an effect on us, in that case they have always had an effect whether any individual astrologer knew about them or not, so any charting that did not take them into effect was wrong. Can't get around that. That means that until legitimate science discovered Eros, or Charon, or some massive body orbiting a distant star, astrologers didn't know about it and were wrongly creating charts without this data. Again, no matter what, they had to be wrong by their own definitions. Extrapolate this forward as well. Since we can be very certain that there are other undiscovered bodies out there, and astrologers know absolutely nothing about them until astronomers find them, well they can't include those bodies in their charts either. So their charts are still going to be wrong. Every single time. Even if their premise were correct they could never, ever know about every single body floating around our solar system let alone every single star in our galaxy. So, obviously, their methods could never ever produce accurate results.

The only way around this simple logic is to claim additional magical exceptions to their methodologies e.g. a body doesn't count until it is discovered. How such a body could interact in other ways (as through gravitational interactions), whether we know about it or not, but not have an astrological effect until discovered invites more magical explanations and hand-waving.

[H3LL]

Here is a list of useful articles:

Have you got anything by Claus Larsen?

:D



Seriously though. Interesting...Have you done anything similar on Tarot Cards and there ilk? PM me..Ta.

.

[HawkeyeMD]

You've taken on a difficult task, as I'm sure you know.

The problem with trying to convince someone to give up their "gris-gris", as we tend to call it lately, is that they're emotionally invested in this particular thing being right, somehow. I have a friend in med school--an MD/PhD candidate, no less--who is quite rational about most things, but who believes fervently in acupuncture. And not the results they're getting in some scientific studies, where it does seem like piercing the skin with needles creates *some* analgesic effect but it doesn't matter where the needles are--he thinks it's important that it's done the way the Chinese do it.

And his main argument for this? "It's been around for three thousand years, so there *must* be something to it."

I have pointed out to him that astrology has been around that long too--he doesn't believe in astrology, as it happens--but he doesn't see, or refuses to see, the analogy. I tried pointing out that he doesn't buy homeopathy, which also supposedly works in ways that science says it shouldn't, but he dismisses that because homeopathy has only been around for about 150 years. So what can you do? If someone isn't interested in challenging their own beliefs, there isn't much you can do about it. They'll always have a reason to dismiss any evidence you show them. All they have to do is say, "Well, okay, that didn't show anything, but they still can't be *sure* there's nothing to it." Which I promise you, mostly they will.

All of which is not to discourage you from trying. ;) Heck, that's why we're all here. But just be aware that you have a low potential for success, and one thing you have to think about is whether you want to risk alienating a friend over it. Because sooner or later, you will. I've had to stop talking to my own family about a lot of this stuff, because there are a lot of emotions that run high when you insist on challenging someone's cherished beliefs, not matter how gentle you try to be about it.

Good luck! Keep us posted. :)

Hawkeye

[Hindmost]

You've taken on a difficult task, as I'm sure you know.

The problem with trying to convince someone to give up their "gris-gris", as we tend to call it lately, is that they're emotionally invested in this particular thing being right, somehow. I have a friend in med school--an MD/PhD candidate, no less--who is quite rational about most things, but who believes fervently in acupuncture. And not the results they're getting in some scientific studies, where it does seem like piercing the skin with needles creates *some* analgesic effect but it doesn't matter where the needles are--he thinks it's important that it's done the way the Chinese do it.

And his main argument for this? "It's been around for three thousand years, so there *must* be something to it."....


Hawkeye

slight sidebar:

Believing in accupunctue

Have your md/phd friend look at this link...acccupuncture may have been around for 3000 years, but so have the "theraputic" uses of mercury. And mercury is an all natural medicine.:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element) under "history."

glenn:boxedin:

[Chupacabras]

The current problem with astrology is not that the data is wrong, but that astrologers differ in how to utilise it...

Gee... That pretty much settles it for me.

[CFLarsen]

Have you got anything by Claus Larsen?

:D

Hmmm....I'll go check! :)

Seriously though. Interesting...Have you done anything similar on Tarot Cards and there ilk? PM me..Ta.

Not yet. But I could...

Email me if you got something in mind.

[Mr. Stick]

And his main argument for this? "It's been around for three thousand years, so there *must* be something to it."

Try asking your friend why the rhinoceros is on the border of extermination. I'm sure they'll be pleased to know that they were not killed in vain, since the Chinese have used their horns for thousands of years as a very potent medicine!

[Nucular]

You could prove him wrong straight off by having a natal chart tattooed onto your bicep. If that doesn't work...

Just a couple of smallish points to tack onto Claus's great collection of articles, and the other good comments.

Psychiatry can indeed legitimately be seen as a 'pseudoscience': it's an area of controversy, but it's certainly the case that in scientific studies in that field and the closely-allied field of clinical psychology, the subjective nature of specific diagnosis requires a degree of 'inter-rater reliability' in order to be considered 'sound'. Inter-rater reliability is getting more than one clinician - preferably several - to independently diagnose people, usually based on strict criteria (e.g. DSM-IV-R, ICD-10, etc.), and then to statistically analyse the degree of agreement between the raters. If agreement is low, it has to be acknowledged as a flaw in the study. I'd like to see the inter-rater reliability coefficient for whatever astrological studies your friend has.

Similarly, treatment and outcome in psychiatry and psychology are the basis of a great deal of scientific investigation, to remove as much of the subjectivity or fuzziness as possible - culminating in Cochrane Reviews, meta-analyses, 'what works?' texts, etc.

He also says "So yeah, there's a lot of ******** surrounding astrology. There's con artists, hucksters, and opportunists." How does he tell the difference?
In the universe's complexity, our limited scope as humans tends to perceive chaos and randomness.
Au contraire. Our limited scope as humans predisposes us to seek patterns: this is how our information-processing units in our heads have evolved, to see patterns in the chaos. This has helped us spot correlations in the world, which has helped us produce the early technology and mastery over the world which has put us where we are today. However, it has also imbued us with a propensity to commit Type II errors, and see patterns where there are none, which is why we've developed the scientific method: to rid ourselves of this weakness. Google 'pareidolia' for a specific discussion of this.

He appears to be fairly happy to wax poetic and woolly in his quasi-Buddhist discussion of how everything must be linked, but is a little less eager to describe exactly how he thinks things are linked, or the exact mechanisms for the distant stars influencing people's behaviour on earth.

It comes down to this: if there is reason to think astrology is true, that reason should be of one or both of two types. First, an observed, reliable and replicable effect, but perhaps with no proposed mechanism. That would be fine, and would provide a starting point for our discovery of a mechanism, which would be fascinating and probably era-defining. Second, a proposed mechanism, or a theoretical manner of action which would predict astrological phenomena, with or without the observed effects as yet. This would have to be tight, exact, and based heavily in existing science to have any merit, and would be fully testable by its generated predictions. DaveX, on the other hand, appears to argue that he doesn't need the first, as astrologers differ on its application and findings, there's a lot of subjectivity, science will lose a lot by trying to retain its rigour and insistence on consistent results, etc.; but then seems to consider the second self-evident, with no reason to describe exactly what mechanisms he means. So it's hard to see why he thinks there may be a "germ of something valuable" there at all.

[Thing]

Its not much different from scientists who, working from the same data, are able to come up with conflicting concepts of human evolution, global warming, or even relatively simple matters like the weather. It would be silly, and unscientific, to cast the whole of meteorology aside because of so many wrong "predictions"


Flawed analogy. Firstly, meteorological predictions can be wrong but they're more often right (and getting better) and we can assess their success statistically and see that they're significantly better than chance, unlike astrology. Secondly, we understand how our confidence in the prediction declines with how far ahead we have to make the prediction. Astrology doesn't do better in some circumstances than others, it sucks across the board. Thirdly, meteorology is the application of physical laws that have a rational basis and have stood up to countless attempts to prove them wrong, to a very large system with inevitably uncertain data. Astrology assumes an unknown mechanism that would have to behave completely unlike everything else we observe in the universe to work in the way it's supposed to. Fourthly, meteorologists are continually trying to improve their predictive power by modifying their practices in the light of past failures. Astrologer, well, you see the pattern.

Take psychiatry, for instance. I'm sure that Tony wouldn't go on about how psychiatry is a pseudo-science, just because different doctors could diagnose one patient in so many different ways; even with completely different treatments, outcomes, etcetera!


Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't, I'd certainly be willing to have a swing at it, once you've defined what you mean by psychiatry and having distanced myself from $cientologists flawed arguments.

Brushing this sort of obvious crap aside, and giving astrology a real shot-- like Gaguelin (whose seminal text concerning experiments linking biological data with astrological phenomenon sits on my bookshelf right now) will give us more to work with in order to formulate some real opinions.


Gauquelin (it's on the shelf man, it can't be that hard to check the spelling!) looked at characteristics that correlate with day of birth within the year. There's debate as to how good the correlation he found was, but even if he or someone else found a cast iron correlation it would say zip squat nada about astrology, unless the majority of astrologists were consistently predicting that correlation before it was observed (they certainly weren't for Gauquelin's work). But they don't agree on anything. If there's nothing in it why haven't they all converged on a few basics by now?

Good luck, fight the good fight.

[chracatoa]

Badastronomy.com also has a great section dealing with astrology. You will find many, many good reasons why astrology simply can't work. Here is a real simple headscratcher for astrology believers though:

Astrologists incorporate newly discovered astronomical bodies such as large asteriods, comets, icy bodies out in the Kuiper belt, and even planets found around other stars into their charting systems.

(snipped)


evil's advocate: the more planets they add, the more precise the result. Initially, they had a rough approximation, then they refined it with the new discoveries.

disclaimer: I do not believe in astrology!

[TimmyBerry]

Gauquelin (it's on the shelf man, it can't be that hard to check the spelling!)

Good luck, fight the good fight.


... Looks like a bad spelling of Gauguin.

[steve s]

About a year ago Astronomy magazine had a good article refuting astrology. (It was the Dec. '04 issue.) Several of the key points were...

1) The horoscopes in the newspaper are all off by one month. My birthday is in May which makes me a Taurus, except I'm really a Libra. That's because 2300+ years ago when the charts were laid out the sun was in the constellation Taurus in the month of May. But because the earth's axis has shifted since then the sun is now in the constellation Libra in May.

2)There are actually 13 constellations in the Zodiac. The 13th is Ophiuchus, which the sun passes through in December.

3)The horoscopes assume the sun spends a month in each constellation, but that's not true. The sun only spends 8 days in Scorpio, but 45 days in Sagitarius (IIRC).

Here's the link to that back issue...
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?id=413&c=i

If all else fails, just remind him that Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh were born on the same day. If that doesn't debunk astrology then nothing does.

Steve S.

[tyoungblood@bellsouth.net]

Wow, I'm quickly beginning to realize what an amazing resource this message board is! Thanks everyone for your arguments, ideas, input, and support! I can tell, I'll be spending a lot of time here!

Best,

Tony

[CFLarsen]

Wow, I'm quickly beginning to realize what an amazing resource this message board is! Thanks everyone for your arguments, ideas, input, and support! I can tell, I'll be spending a lot of time here!

Best,

Tony
Yeah, but be careful....you might spend too much time here....(coughs, points to own postcount) :)

[HawkeyeMD]

Hawkeye

slight sidebar:

Believing in accupunctue

Have your md/phd friend look at this link...acccupuncture may have been around for 3000 years, but so have the "theraputic" uses of mercury. And mercury is an all natural medicine.:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element) under "history."

glenn:boxedin:

Glenn--my point is just that if the claim is "but this is different!" then it doesn't matter how many analogies you present them with. They have to be willing to consider the possibility that they're wrong, and when they're invested in their particular belief, they just won't. I'm sure he'd look at a mercury website and just roll his own eyes. *g* He knows Hg is dangerous. But acupuncture is different!! :boggled:

BTW, on a separate note...not to worry. My 'jealousy' is all tongue in cheek.
:p

Hawkeye

[Hindmost]

Glenn--my point is just that if the claim is "but this is different!" then it doesn't matter how many analogies you present them with. They have to be willing to consider the possibility that they're wrong, and when they're invested in their particular belief, they just won't. I'm sure he'd look at a mercury website and just roll his own eyes. *g* He knows Hg is dangerous. But acupuncture is different!! :boggled:

BTW, on a separate note...not to worry. My 'jealousy' is all tongue in cheek.
:p

Hawkeye

I have always felt the arguement "this is different" is really the worst way to start a discussion. It shuts down exchange of information and--as you indicated--people don't consider the possibility that they're wrong.

I have always liked to use the elemental mercury reference since it was considered to have such mystical powers for such a long period of history. That worked out well...:rolleyes:

Glad to hear about the 'tongue in cheek thing' too.:p

glenn:boxedin:

"this is different" Reminds me of the stock market in 1998 to 2001...many "experts" were saying the valuations of stocks were "different this time." It was different until it was the same.

[RichardR]

Where Tony and I differ most is that I'm willing to acknowledge that there is a germ of something valuable within astrology. I think that given further study, and with some good scientific minds on the job, there might be a future for it Yes, give them a bit more time, I mean, they've only had about 4,000 years.

Historically, astrology was the final step in a liberal arts, university education. Astrology was the reason the ancients took the time to develop a calendar in the first place-- with incredibly complex and accurate time systems being developed by the Mayans, the Egyptians, the Chinese, and the Abyssinians in order to get their hands on the most accurate data for astrological use. It seems downright foolhardy to spit on a discipline studied by geniuses like Johannes Kepler, Tycho Brahe, Plato, and Leonardo da Vinci. So it should be possible then to show how all these smart people worked out all the detailed astrologicaL rules. Because if it wasn't worked out then it must have been made up. So ask your friend where the scientific data are that show how astrology was derived. The information is available somewhere for all sciences. If he thinks astrology is a science its provenance must be in evidence somewhere.

I wrote about this here (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/03/the_astrology_c.html).

I followed that up with several posts that were summarized here (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/astrology_chall_2.html).

A final point. The burden of proof is upon the claimant, so if your friend claims astrolgy works it is up to him to back up that claim, not to you to prove it doesn't work. So what evidence does he have that it works? Whining about how it's difficult, astrologers use it differently, weather forecasts can be wrong etc are just fallacious appeals to science was wrong before (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/11/science_wrong.html).

btw - you could show him these 37 tests astrology failed (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/what_do_you_mea.html) to get him started.

[RichardR]

One more thing Tony - what is the url of your friend's Blog?

[Alkatran]

The easiest way to do this:
Take all the horoscopes from the paper each day and remove the labels, so you're friend doesn't know which is which. (just the prediction part)

See if he/she can pick the correct horoscope more than 1/12 of the time. Try to make sure they don't cheat...

[ChristineR]

I'd take a different approach. Most suggestions are pointing to various flaws in Astrology. But so what if the star signs are off by a month? That just means that a good astrologer has to know that in his calculations.

I'd start with the assumption that astrology is correct. Then we can make clear statements about how the stars influence our lives.

First we have the correlation between season of birth and biology. Doesn't mean much with respect to the stars--there's a reason most animals have their babies at a particular season. Add in the social differences that apply to a child born at, say, Christmas time, and you've got a lot to work with.

So what else? What among all the silly newspaper horoscopes and prehistoric astromony is valid? Ask your friend to name it, then ask him if he's willing to do some simple tests to validate it.

There have been plenty of smart people who took astrology seriously, dove headfirst into it, and eventually swam their way out. Telling your friend that all avenues have been explored already is not so effective as asking him what avenue he thinks has the magic formula hidden at the end.

[tyoungblood@bellsouth.net]

I tried to post the URL, but apparently, I haven't posted enough messages yet in order to be allowed to do this. So you'll have to get creative. Just go to myspace and search for user daephex. Incidentally, if you have a myspace account, feel free to add me as a friend. After typing the myspace dot com address, put a slash and type tonyyoungbloodtheperson, or just search for that.

[NeilC]

"As some of my readers and friends may have noticed, my good pal Tony really doesn't like astrology. Or tattoos, but that's a different matter entirely. Suffice it to say that Tony will never get a tattoo of a natal chart on his bicep, or anywhere else on his body.

Anyhow, I've heard enough. It's time to speak... err, write. I'm getting tired of all this "double-blind test" result waving, and general "I've got science on my side" attitude. As if I don't know about science? Ha! So let me lay it all out for you:"

* 'Knowing about science' is one thing – but Dave clearly doesn’t understand it, or he wouldn’t believe in astrology without more hard evidence. That is the basis of science, not just reading some articles or doing a highschool exam.

"The current problem with astrology is not that the data is wrong, but that astrologers differ in how to utilise it, occasionally to the point that astrologers may even differ over ideas about what data is even relavant."

* This is one explanation. The other is that opinion is so fundamental to astrology as to render it useless, even if the underlying theory was correct.*

"In any studies that have been done so far, the researchers have routinely screwed up on one main point-- mainly, that they're trying to see if all the "results" are the same as one another, rather than accepting (like in many other scientific disciplines) that interpretations of data will vary.

Its not much different from scientists who, working from the same data, are able to come up with conflicting concepts of human evolution, global warming, or even relatively simple matters like the weather. It would be silly, and unscientific, to cast the whole of meteorology aside because of so many wrong "predictions". Simply put, there's a ******** of data, and it can be hard to make sense of what is most important, and what it all means. For any reasonably minded person, this just means that meteorology (and by comparison, astrology) have some ways to come before being as well-defined as something like... well, hell.. I'm having trouble coming up with an example here."

* You can't just say that researchers have screwed up without addressing individual studies and specific errors, otherwise it's just a baseless attack. Meteorologists might argue about some of the big, long-term issues like GW but that is predicted by meteorological theory – there is a large chaotic element to it. But lower level, everyday claims of meteorologists are testable and are constantly proven to be statistically significant. Astrology cannot make any predictions at all. They are not parallel.*

"Last I checked, most major scientific disciplines were engaged in some pretty serious debates. Take psychiatry, for instance. I'm sure that Tony wouldn't go on about how psychiatry is a pseudo-science, just because different doctors could diagnose one patient in so many different ways; even with completely different treatments, outcomes, etcetera!"

* Just because scientists disagree about various topics does not validate all or any other topics which people disagree about. They are similar only in that they cause disagreement. Dave needs to show other reasons why they are similar. And as a matter of fact, much of psychiatry can be argued to be pseudoscience. Psychiatry is not a science as such but a medical modality utilizing some scientific principles.*

"Where Tony and I differ most is that I'm willing to acknowledge that there is a germ of something valuable within astrology. I think that given further study, and with some good scientific minds on the job, there might be a future for it alongside other disciplines. It's sort of funny how it's been forgotten-- I think mostly, because it was the branch of science most challenging to the Church in days past."

*Scientific minds HAVE looked at it and decided, because of ZERO evidence that it can provide any useful information or predictions, that it is unscientific. How many times do we need to keep doing this? There isn't a prize for being open-minded in the face of reason. Things are either correct or they are not*

"Historically, astrology was the final step in a liberal arts, university education. Astrology was the reason the ancients took the time to develop a calendar in the first place-- with incredibly complex and accurate time systems being developed by the Mayans, the Egyptians, the Chinese, and the Abyssinians in order to get their hands on the most accurate data for astrological use. It seems downright foolhardy to spit on a discipline studied by geniuses like Johannes Kepler, Tycho Brahe, Plato, and Leonardo da Vinci. "

*So what?*

"Sure they had different concepts of the universe, and radically different understandings of the workings of the cosmos-- they didn't even have knowledge of the planets we have today! But on the other hand, early scientists didn't have knowledge of many things we have today, and were still able to make many important discoveries, and advance the knowledge around them. That's what science is all about-- furthering knowledge, not shutting it down."

* Dave defines science for us – defines it as furthering knowledge. It is more than that. It is furthering real knowledge by sorting out the truths from errors. Astrology is in error. Early scientists also got a lot of stuff wrong. So what? How is this relevant? How does this, in anyway at all, give validity to astrology? *

"So yeah, there's a lot of ******** surrounding astrology. There's con artists, hucksters, and opportunists. They're everywhere. Look at a horoscope-- according to your local newspaper, one-twelvth of the world's population is engaged in the same "you will find happiness" sort of vague activity on any given day. It's silly. To use the newspaper horoscope as an example of why we should abandon astrology is just as valid as saying that since Dear Abby's advice to someone was faulty, we might as well give up on sociology."

*Some newspaper astrologists claim the advice they give is not silly. Who are we to believe? It should be simple to see who is right – by dong some simple tests. But we’ve done these tests on “proper” astrology….and it doesn’t work. Dear Abby does not claim to be scientific. Again Dave comes up with a non-parallel and therefore a non-argument.*

"Brushing this sort of obvious crap aside, and giving astrology a real shot-- like Gaguelin (whose seminal text concerning experiments linking biological data with astrological phenomenon sits on my bookshelf right now) will give us more to work with in order to formulate some real opinions."

*And can Gaguelin demonstrate his theories to be true? No. So why no brush this aside too?*

"Finally, let me say this: in my estimate, the universe is a mechanical place. As we gather more knowledge of it's workings, we will eventually be able to see the manner in which all things link with all others. Obviously, this is so, for how could anything within the universe not be affected (or affect) another part? In the universe's complexity, our limited scope as humans tends to perceive chaos and randomness. Logic tells me that this cannot be. In this way, I wonder if astrology isn't simply one of the ways in which we are able to look and see one of these links. Perhaps the movement of the cosmos is simply one of an infinite set of such linkages-- but possibly, one of the only that is large enough, and obvious enough, for us to perceive at the present time."

* So everything “is connected” therefore the stars are connected to us, therefore looking at their position in space tells us about our lives now and in the future? How? Why? By what mechanism? Why stars? Why not read tea-leaves, or palms or my vomit for that matter? Surely my brain is connected to everything too, so why no just listen to what I say? Anyone can make these loose, meaningless statements but if the claimant can provide no actual mechanism and show no evidence that it is true then we have to rule them out. Otherwise we must believe all and any claim which is clearly unworkable and wouldn’t further our knowledge one bit.*

What Dave is saying is: stuff is connected and therefore it might be true and I am open-minded and believe it. That’s all very nice. But it doesn’t make it true and there are a lot of very good reasons to believe it isn’t true. He provides no evidence at all. He merely states that he is more "open-minded" than you which apparantly makes him a better person, that some historical figures believed erroneus stuff (hardly news) and that "proper" astrology is different to The Sun stars.

Essentially, he tells us he believes in something for no good reason.

[tsg]

evil's advocate: the more planets they add, the more precise the result. Initially, they had a rough approximation, then they refined it with the new discoveries.

good's advocate: If that was the case, why have no (recent) planets been discovered by astrologers? If planets really have the effects the astrologers claim they do, shouldn't they be able to detect them? Shouldn't some astrologer be able to detect a pattern in the error of their predictions that could only be explained by another planetary body somewhere? Why do they need astronomers to tell them they're there?

[RichardR]

I tried to post the URL, but apparently, I haven't posted enough messages yet in order to be allowed to do this. So you'll have to get creative. Just go to myspace and search for user daephex. Incidentally, if you have a myspace account, feel free to add me as a friend. After typing the myspace dot com address, put a slash and type tonyyoungbloodtheperson, or just search for that. Here it is, people (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=46272171&blogID=93387965&MyToken=4499368b-7ec0-462c-850a-07ba24162d18). You can post comments too.

[Sunnysays]

NOTE: I WROTE THIS ABOUT 12 HOURS AGO, BUT DIDN'T RECEIVE A WORKING ACCOUNT UNTIL JUST NOW. I MAY TRY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE MORE CURRENT IDEAS LATER. FOR NOW, ENJOY.

My name is DaveX, and I'm one of the newest forum members-- though you have all be somewhat introduced to me (cut 'n paste style) via my blog entry "In Defense of Astrology and Science" posted here earlier by my good friend Tony.

After he informed me that he has "farmed out" his response to the good folks at the James Randi skeptic forum, I just knew that I would have to hightail it over to see what a ruckus my words were making. But before I start slinging phrases like "did anyone actually READ my post?," I'll make an introduction:

Like Tony, I'm also a fan of Scientific American magazine. I read it in grocery stores whenever possible. I was a big fan of one of their recent articles about dealing with design-science goofballs who knock on your door. I'm also very much "into" science, without actually being a scientist myself. Some of my favorite topics over the years have included the history of rocketry, various press releases from the Mars missions, and even a history of salt, which was much more fascinating than you might think. I first heard of the "million-dollar challenge" on a broadcast from the SETI Radio Network. (In fact, check the Mar. 1, '06 broadcast for some more astro-related stuff)...

Anyways, the idea of the challenge seems like a pretty cool idea. I'm definately interested to see people who would come forward, and more or less show that some of these things aren't really working. It's hasn't been a terribly long time that I've even done more than sniff at astrology myself. Up until a few years ago, I would have easily grouped it with healing crystals, flat earth theories, etc... but I met someone who was having quite a bit of success with being able to tell people about rather intimate aspects of their lives, and I eventually began trying to learn more.

Let me stop a minute, and clarify. This "friend" of mine (who Tony knows) doesn't want to be involved with the stigma of astrology. She feels that its gotten a pretty bad name over the years, and will always tell people that she doesn't actually believe in it herself-- but admits that it certainly seems to work. So don't be hounding me with a request to haul her in for examination. She doesn't do this stuff professionally, and is content to quietly try to learn more on her own. As for myself, I have never actually done any astrology. I have a hard time with numbers, and there are quite a few calcuations one must do to create a chart of any reasonable level of accuracy. Although you can see I'm adept with language, I easily fall into the category of people who should NEVER have a checkbook, or be trusted to remember a phone number.

Back to my introduction: One thing that I was surprised to learn about astrology was that the "data" portion of the chart was fixed. By "fixed" I mean that for astrologer "A" and astrologer "B" to each create a chart of say... Elvis Presley, a certain time and place would be used; with the same ASTRONOMICAL data being used to draw up each chart. (And for now, we're just going to assume they're using the same type of chart, and not making use of additional data from planetoids, moons, etc). The main point is that after drawing up these charts, astrologers A and B will have the same diagram laying before them. Alright, this may not be a jaw-dropping bit of information, but it was actually news to me. I'd never had contact with an astrology before, so I was ignorant of how things were done.

After drawing the chart, things get more "fuzzy", to use Bush's terminology. Different astrologers interpret the data (this being the chart) in different ways. I won't get into some boring examples, but suffice it to say that while there are some pretty general things astrologers agree on, I don't think there is really a codified way to read a chart at present. I've seen my "friend" disagree with other astrologers, usually on points of how one part relates or influences another, or about what the "weight" of an influence may be in light of others. So in many regards, I can totally see how easily it is for someone to use astrology to "prove" all manners of things. I'm not disputing that this is done, on a daily basis. I've met more than one person involved with astrology at a professional level who had no illusion about their use of it as being anything but a scam.

But there is my experience with it, nagging at me. And that's where science comes in. I was in a bookstore some years ago, when I came across a book by Carl Sagan. I was doing my usual "reading in the aisles" technique when I came across his fairly short refuation of astrology. (The book was about pseudoscience, as I recall)... Anyhow, I was interested to see what he would have to say about it, because I truly am interested in what the mechanics of astrology might be, or if I might have missed something when considering its verity. What I found in his book was actually fairly disappointing. Essentially, he said something along the lines that the conclusions made by astrologers about a single subject were wildly different, and often were untrue. If memory serves me (and be kind, it's been a few years, and I didn't BUY the book) he mentioned that statistically, the results were no better (and may have been worse) than just guessing.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not going to act like I'm smarter than Carl Sagan. The man could intellectually buy and sell me, no doubt. But for all the time he spent shooting fish in a barrel on other pseudo-science ideas, I really felt like he missed on the astrology. The first thing that popped in my mind was: "so this only proves that they disagreed, right?"

I'm no moron. My next thought was that maybe they ought to bring the dude in who got stuff right, and put him to work, and see how he does on other stuff. But I figured-- maybe he's not got it ALL together, and all charts are a bit different. Maybe he just happened to get one he knew how to do pretty well. So mentally, I gave this guy the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he's just a chump who got an easy question. Then again, I said, what sort of questions were they asking these people? I've seen people get pretty squirmy when my friend does astrology, because she tends to just sort of lay their life bare. I imagine it's not a real natural feeling, and really, how well do we know ourselves, anyway? It's certainly not normal to see your life/personality/relationships viewed from this outside angle. So again, there's definately a good amount of grey area, but intriguing questions nonetheless.

Alright. Now on to why I posted my blog. Basically, Tony has really been hot on the whole "astrology is nonsense" pulpit lately. It seems to crop up in the damndest places, and was sort of getting on my nerves. I guess it felt like a bit of a personal dig, but hey, whatever. I'm tough. So I blogged about it, which is what tough guys do. *lol*

All I really wanted to say was that astrology is worth more scientific study-- and I'm not talking about scientific tests to bring people in to test THEM-- I'm thinking more along the lines of gathering data on how astrological charts are read and interpreted; and putting some scientific minds to work on doing some charts of their own. Use computers, whatever. Actually put some real work into it. Unlike alchemy (which another forum member had mentioned) I don't recall anyone ever pointing out a specific mechanism or law that would make astrology impossible, though I do remember being shown why alchemy couldn't be true in my first chem class.

Essentially, I was getting tired of the self-agrandizing, smarter-than-thou attitude I was encountering whenever astrology pops up in conversation. Did any of you see the documentary on dowsing, about the director's mother, who claimed she could find water with a stick? I enjoyed it, outside of one part-- the guy who gets really INTENSE about dowsing being a pseudoscience, and basically acts like a prick. It was weird, I mean... I basically agree with the guy, but he was acting like a loon. He just seemed inhuman in a lot of ways, and it struck me while he was certainly very smart, he wasn't someone who I could trust not to have a knee-jerk reaction about these sorts of things. Honestly, he acted like a fundamentalist scientist, if there is such a thing. Hell, it might have been James Randi himself-- though the name wouldn't have meant anything to me at the time. I was just looking for the name of the movie-- Divining Mom-- and apparently, he's in it. So maybe I've stepped on some toes.

Sue me.

One interesting thing in the movie was that, at one time, the government put some serious money behind studying dowsing, which I think is a pretty cool thing to do. At least they made an effort to see if there was much of anything to it.

Now let me hit on a few points that others have made on this forum:

1) I'm not OPPOSED to double-blind testing. I just don't think that astrology is really ready for it yet. A couple thousand years of church interference (to put it lightly) can do that to a science.

2) I'm going to check out those articles. I like to read. My mind isn't made up for absolute certain, and I've got no problem changing it. A few years back, I'd have acted like an egghead about astrology, too.

3) I already addressed the alchemy thing, but for the record, no.. I'm not "down" with alchemy. Why don't you ask Tony about the Alister Crowley stuff I used to hear him and his buddies yakking about? *lol*

4) I'm not even going to act like I have an explanation for HOW astrology would work. I'd love to know. Its just not a question I am even remotely equipped to deal with. It's one of those things I'd like to see find FURTHER SCIENTIFIC STUDY. As for the additional planet thing, yes, it bothers me in some ways too. But I know that science doesn't always start out knowing everything, and that we have to adjust our theories as we learn more. I'm not sure why this would be any different with astrology.

5) I'm actually sort of ticked off that someone said "gris-gris"... That's pretty condescending, and makes me picture you as something like Frasier Crane-- well meaning, but a bit of an ass. Same thing goes with "cherished beliefs". Did anything in my blog make you see me as a zealot? Lighten up.

6) Ditto on the rhino comment. This sort of thing doesn't really make me feel like you're up to the task of having a legitimate discussion as much as that you just want to spit from somewhere really, really high.

7) " inter-rater reliability" Whoever posted this is on the MONEY. Ah, "Nucular"... yes, this is what I'm trying to express, though I had never heard this word before. I truly believe that it is the subjective nature of astrological interpretation that is at fault in the studies. Like I said before, some actual scientific work needs to go into this area, and then by all means... let's see some of those "inter-rater reliablity" numbers. I don't have them. I'm just a normal guy.

8) More for "Nucular"-- Some of the con artists and hucksters outright told me what they do. As for my friend, she has made an honest attempt to really use astrology and learn more about it. I understand what you're saying about finding patterns, what I was saying is that when we look at complex things (like the universe) there is also a tendency to sort of "give up" and say that its so large... that the complexity gives it the sheen of randomness. Like soap bubbles. They appear randomly placed, but I read that they are actually attached to one another in very fixed ways. As for the "quasi-Buddhist" links I spoke of, I meant ACTUAL links. I really believe that the universe has fixed laws, and that despite its complexity, that everything moves and behaves in specific manners that are ultimately going to be reduceable to rather dull formulas. If someone were able to utilise these formulas, I don't see how they couldn't theoretically calculate the speed of Jupiter by examining the placement of a picture frame on my wall. It might take a lot of calculation, but I think it could be done. As you can see, I have a lot of hopes for what science will someday be able to understand.

9) Sorry about my spelling of Gauquelin. If you want to nitpick, you might move on to my sock drawer. Cause I don't have one.

10) Steve S mentioned some things from Astronomy magazine. I know that there are many chart types which take into account the shift he spoke of. Furthermore, if Howard Stern and Rush are indeed born on the same day, that wouldn't be any big deal. Any astrologer of even mild intellience would also require their time of birth, and location.

11) URL of my blog? Umm... not sure offhand. RichardR links to it above.

12) Alkatran-- As I had mentioned, horoscopes are ********. They don't take into account even the most basic information needed to compile a chart. They are the equivalent of trying to travel to the moon in a cardboard box. Before you make a dopey comment like that in the future, I'd appreciate you reading what I had originally said-- lines like " Look at a horoscope-- according to your local newspaper, one-twelvth of the world's population is engaged in the same "you will find happiness" sort of vague activity on any given day. It's silly. " Anyhow, you've learned your lesson if you made it this far.

That's all for now. It's 2 in the morning, and I'm upset that I have to wait for forum approval to post this. I look forward to discussion this with you all, and maybe calming the knee-jerk reaction I'm seeing so much of these days. If you doubt my committment to science, read some of my other blogs-- like the one where I pretty much volunteer to be rocketed into outer space as long as I get the opportunity to further the space program. You will see a link to them if you follow RichardR's link just above my post on this forum.

All the best,

DaveX

[Gr8wight]

In any studies that have been done so far, the researchers have routinely screwed up on one main point-- mainly, that they're trying to see if all the "results" are the same as one another, rather than accepting (like in many other scientific disciplines) that interpretations of data will vary.


So, according to your buddy, if astrologer 'A' tells me that because Mercury is retrograde in Sagittarius, my love life is on the rise, and astrologer 'B' tells me that because Mercury is retrograde in Sagittarius, my love life is waning...

They're both right?

E.T.A. Oh, Hi Dave. I didn't see you there. Can you answer my question?

[Gr8wight]

btw - you could show him these 37 tests astrology failed (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/what_do_you_mea.html) to get him started.

That's one of my favourite articles of all time, Richard. I refer people to it regularly. In fact, I just wrote a letter to a local TV station complaining about a wacko astrologer/palmist/tarot reader guest they interviewed, and I referred them to that article.

-Paul

[vbloke]

I posited a bit about astrology in another thread - hope it helps (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1294382&postcount=168)

[Sunnysays]

I'm actually familiar with a lot of these, and I have to admit, I like how a few of them are structured. There are some that really bother me, though-- like having untrained people figure out what astrological information is theirs? Reading that stuff can be like plowing through sand sometimes, and I think it's an unnatural way for us to look at ourselves in many instances. I don't think I'd get mine, either-- between people not being entirely truthful with their feelings, not understanding themselves very well, or just being unsure of how to deal with information in that manner... I can see where a lot of problems would arise.

The one where the data was taken from some sort of standardized test has also bothered me in the past. I've heard many times that tests of this sort aren't terribly accurate either, and have problems of their own. For the astrologers to try to merge those results with their own, I think, is a pretty tough task.

I'm very interested in Journal of Conciousness Study, Aug. 2003. That sounds like it could be a good one. Was the location of these people's birth taken into account? I know that your physical place of birth is also important to receiving accurate results.

Finally, let me say a bit about the Claus links... I thought they were pretty feeble. The bit about Jeffrey Dahmer was amusing, but I sure would like to know what his birth data was so I could see the chart myself. (Birthday, time, place). If it's as wildly off as they say, it might be interesting to see.

Thanks!

--DaveX

[Sunnysays]

I think that, obviously, one of them is wrong. But I also think that without doing some decent, above-ground research into astrology itself (i.e. what works, what doesn't, codifying techniques, etc) that we won't have a good way of knowing. I'm really very much in favor of further study. I'm not a practicing astrologer myself.

[Nucular]

My name is DaveX, and I'm one of the newest forum members-- though you have all be somewhat introduced to me (cut 'n paste style) via my blog entry "In Defense of Astrology and Science" posted here earlier by my good friend Tony.
Hi there DaveX, welcome to the forum!

"Nucular" here (if that IS my real name)...

Wow, that's a long post - I'm afraid I for one haven't time to respond in detail tonight, but, if I'm not comprehensively beaten to it (which I inevitably will be), I'll give my response as soon as I can. Interesting topic though, glad you came along :)

[Sunnysays]

It's actually funny, when you really consider the ramifications of what I'm saying-- essentially; that astrologers are currently getting a lot of things wrong, that the science as a whole needs some serious work (as opposed to people just making personal conjecture, and writing a book about it), and more serious scientific time and effort spent to bring the whole thing into the light.

Yet this seems to be a problem with everyone here.

Like I said, it's funny.

How can one even go about something like this? Its surely a bit beyond me. Its easily as daunting as those people who venture into parts unknown to preserve a dying culture, but don't even know the language.

DaveX

[Gr8wight]

I think that, obviously, one of them is wrong. But I also think that without doing some decent, above-ground research into astrology itself (i.e. what works, what doesn't, codifying techniques, etc) that we won't have a good way of knowing. I'm really very much in favor of further study. I'm not a practicing astrologer myself.

No, neither was Jak Keeran.

[Mr. Stick]

6) Ditto on the rhino comment. This sort of thing doesn't really make me feel like you're up to the task of having a legitimate discussion as much as that you just want to spit from somewhere really, really high.


I think you missed the point that the rhino analogy was in response to someone who thought that acupuncture worked because it had been used for thousands of years. I really don't see the difference between acupuncture and the use of grinded rhino horn if that's your only argument.

BTW welcome to the forum :)

[Gr8wight]

astrologers are currently getting a lot of things wrong

Yeah, Dave. That's kinda the basis of our claims that Astrology doesn't work. Because the astrologers get more things wrong than they get right. Before you reply to me, step back, take a breath, and remember that you said it, not me.

[steve s]

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not going to act like I'm smarter than Carl Sagan. The man could intellectually buy and sell me, no doubt. But for all the time he spent shooting fish in a barrel on other pseudo-science ideas, I really felt like he missed on the astrology. The first thing that popped in my mind was: "so this only proves that they disagreed, right?"

I'm no moron. My next thought was that maybe they ought to bring the dude in who got stuff right, and put him to work, and see how he does on other stuff.

But if the only reason this guy got it right was out of pure chance why would you want to put him to work. If you say to enough people "Pick a number between 1 and 10," eventually someone will get it right. Does this person have some deep insight into the workings of the universe or was their correct answer purely by chance?


Essentially, I was getting tired of the self-agrandizing, smarter-than-thou attitude I was encountering whenever astrology pops up in conversation. Did any of you see the documentary on dowsing, about the director's mother, who claimed she could find water with a stick? I enjoyed it, outside of one part-- the guy who gets really INTENSE about dowsing being a pseudoscience, and basically acts like a prick. It was weird, I mean... I basically agree with the guy, but he was acting like a loon.


Dave, imagine you're having an argument with someone who keeps insisting that the earth is flat and refuses to listen to overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Now imagine having this argument over and over, month after month, year after year. Don't you think you'd get a bit frustrated? Like astrology, belief in the flatness of the earth stretches back thousands of years. Should we show it respect because it's such an old belief?



One interesting thing in the movie was that, at one time, the government put some serious money behind studying dowsing, which I think is a pretty cool thing to do. At least they made an effort to see if there was much of anything to it.


And there wasn't.


10) Steve S mentioned some things from Astronomy magazine. I know that there are many chart types which take into account the shift he spoke of.


But they don't. Any astrologer in the world will tell you that I'm a Taurus because I was born on May 12th, despite the fact that the sun was in the constellation Aries when I was born. Show me one astrologer who would call me an Aries. {Note: I mistakenly said Libra instead of Aries in my earlier post.}


Furthermore, if Howard Stern and Rush are indeed born on the same day, that wouldn't be any big deal. Any astrologer of even mild intellience would also require their time of birth, and location.


Considering that astrology tells us that people born under a certain sign have certain personality traits, why should it matter what the exact time was?

You never did address Ophiucus. For someone born from November 30 to December 17, how do you compose a chart for this person? It wouldn't be right to call him a Sagittarius.

I found the following quote regarding Ophiucus at a pro-astrology site...
"Ptolemy never resolved these contradictions between a simple twelve-sign Solar Zodiac description of the skies and the reality of the thirteen sign heavens, and we as astrologers are still struggling with them today."
At what point in history will astrologers start to resolve this contradiction?

And one last thing. Please stop referring to astrology as science. It's not.

Steve S.

[RichardR]

I'm actually familiar with a lot of these, and I have to admit, I like how a few of them are structured. There are some that really bother me, though-- like having untrained people figure out what astrological information is theirs? They are asking people to say which set of personality characteristics are theirs. Who else would know this? Unless you go to…

The one where the data was taken from some sort of standardized test has also bothered me in the past. I've heard many times that tests of this sort aren't terribly accurate either, and have problems of their own. For the astrologers to try to merge those results with their own, I think, is a pretty tough task. Either the person says what fits or someone else does based on a personality test. What other method is there?

And if neither of these is any good, it begs the question (that I asked before), how did the ancients figure out all the detailed rules in the first place? (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/03/the_astrology_c.html) Because if you can’t test for it by asking (a)the subject or (b) someone else, how would anyone ever have discovered all the rules of astrology?

I'm very interested in Journal of Conciousness Study, Aug. 2003. That sounds like it could be a good one. Was the location of these people's birth taken into account? I know that your physical place of birth is also important to receiving accurate results. Can’t find it online, but it is referred to here (http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf):



A more powerful test was made possible by data from a study unconnected with astrology (Dean, forthcoming) involving 2,101 persons born in London during 3–9 March 1958. They were born on average 4.8 minutes apart

[Bronze Dog]

I wonder if there's a website that tries to reverse-engineer your sign: Asking personality questions to guess your sign...

[Flange Desire]

re op:
Bubby will be more affected by the gravitational attraction of the fridge in the birthing suite, than from all the other planets in the solar system combined (earth and sun excluded).

[Ladewig]

Finally, let me say this: in my estimate, the universe is a mechanical place. As we gather more knowledge of it's workings, we will eventually be able to see the manner in which all things link with all others. Obviously, this is so, for how could anything within the universe not be affected (or affect) another part?

I want to take issue with your claim that every part is affected by every other part.

1) Some things are simply too far away to affect each other. All known forces in the universe decrease with distance. Suggesting that a star 500-million light years away affects the Sun requires some unkown force that operates in ways contary to everything we know about the universe. Furthermore, even if there were a force emitted by this star that affects the Sun, how could we ever detect it given the astronomically large number of other stars closer than 500-million light years away?

2) Some things are too small to affect other parts. Imagine a grain of sand in the Australian Outback. Why should any of us believe that the location (or any other quality of that grain of sand) would influence in any way human being living in the U.S.?

. . . . . . . .

As for your astronomer friend, is she capable of producing accurate charts of people she has never met? If she is only charting people she knows it could be an example of her being exceptionally insightful and being able to read people's personalities well.

. . . . . . . .

As for the mechancism of astrology, as others have said, even if one cannot describe the mechanism but can accurately produce results, one is pretty far on one's way to developing a scientific explanation (and one would be eligible for the JREF $1,000,000 prize (which brings up the question of why aren't the world's very best astronomers applying for the prize )).

Still, as for mechanisms, one must account for some force travelling from Jupiter to Earth and being strong enough to pass through the entire Earth (depending on planetary position) but still be weak enough to be blocked by the the mother's womb and yet stong enough to influence the newborn's brain moments after birth in such a way to measurably affect the personality. What is it about the mother's body that stops this force from acting on the unborn child?

[Bronze Dog]

From my admitted armchair, I'm pretty sure everything does affect everything else... For the most part, though, that effect is "negligible", thanks to the square distance thingamajigger...

Probably said a lot: ...And if astrology waves or whatever somehow compensate for that, I would think that either local objects would be incredibly powerful (if they overcome by sheer power), or (if they don't diminish with distance,) our solar system's planets would be overpowered by billions and billions of extrasolar planets.

[RichardR]

It is possible that everything affects "everything else" to some very small (immesurable) extent. But that is not the same as saying, for example (http://www.stariq.com/Main/Articles/P0001084.htm):

Saturn conjunct the Moon in the Fourth House indicates a difficult early life and the likelihood of a parent who was not very nurturing. See the difference?

These are the detailed rules I’m talking about. No one can explain how they were derived (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/03/the_astrology_c.html).

[Thing]

There are two issues under discussson here: whether astrology works and how respectful we should be of it while addressing the first question. I've already said my piece on the first, now I'd like to say something on the second.

In my view practising astrolgers are not just misguided, they are morally deplorable. There is, in this day and age, no excuse for believing that it works and charging money for it. And it's not just useless, it can have a powerfully malign effect. For example a lady called Pat Harris (website here (http://www.astrologyfashion.com/)) claims to be doing 'research' on the effect of star signs on the success of In-Vitro Fertilization. As the wonderful Catherine Bennet put in a Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,460827,00.html)
It is hard to imagine an endeavour more likely to cause anxiety and distress to some of medicine's most vulnerable patients. In the first place, of course, the experiment is intellectually disreputable. There is no evidence that the stars influence fertility, or, for that matter, any other aspect of human existence, so no phenomenon to investigate. There is on the other hand, abundant evidence that people suffering from infertility may go to almost any lengths for the chance of having a child.

Whatever the outcome of its abject study, the University of Southampton is proposing a possible connection between planetary auspices and individual reproductive systems, thus ensuring that some desperate couples will now start handing over money to astrologers as well as to acupuncturists, healers, herbalists, dieticians, chinese medicine-women and esteemed Harley Street practitioners such as Professor Ian Craft. Some may even decide to defer treatment cycles - and consequently, their chance of pregnancy - in the belief that the stars, as well as their hormones, are not propitious.
Not all astrologers claim such powers but they all manipulate their clients by telling them they know things when they don't. I don't doubt that many of them persuade themselves that they really believe it. That's no excuse. Self-deluded manipulating liars are still manipulating liars. And the myth that there's something there, it just needs more scientific research is an excellent excuse to avoid looking at themselves and realising that what they're doing is just plain wrong. I'm not saying that that's Dave's intent, but by propouonding that view he's giving them a lifeline.

So if you wonder why some of us get riled about astrology, that's why I do.

[deBergerac]

Hi tyoungblood and welcome to the forum

You will not be able to convince your friend that astrology is wrong. There is only one person that can convince him that astrology is wrong and that is he.
If you want to help him to find out the difference between science and astrology you can do it in many different ways. I do not know your friend and what is the best way to talk to him so you will have to decide how to go about it yourself.

First be aware that people are often defensive about their ideas. If you straight out say that astrology is a lot of “a popular TV-show with P & T” your friend may not stay your friend for very long. As have already been mentioned it is easy to loose friends if you constantly attack their ideas and opinions.

My best advice is that you instead of explaining how it is, explain your point of view. If you phrase it like opinions your friend has the possibility to think that your controversy is only one of taste and not one in world view and he might actually consider some of your arguments.

One of the things that you should grab on to is his statement that there is a lot of silliness in astrology. Since you both agree that there are no truth in the newspapers horoscope talk about that for a while and tell him how people have a tendency to give a lot of meaning to general statements if they think that they are about them. It is a good counterargument to his “people see chaos”, instead people sees meening.
Try to find the things that you both agree is bad with astrology and talk about that when you talk about astrology.

It is interesting how your friend talk about a mechanical universe and how everything must be connected and still does not seem interested in what way everything is supposed to be connected. Science does say that the planets around some star in a far away galaxy are connected to me. But science also say that it is a connection of no consequence considering much closer objects like a speeding car or a falling piano.
There is nothing wrong with “spiritual” ideas about our existence but to mix science and religion does not work, and astrology is a mix of science and religion. It is religious believes about the universe claiming to be able to do scientifically testable predictions.
And before someone goes there, to say that astrology work is to say that it makes testable predictions. To say that it works is also different to saying that it makes people feel good, a lot of things makes people feel good even if it is not working.

[petre]

I wonder if there's a website that tries to reverse-engineer your sign: Asking personality questions to guess your sign...

Sure, with questions like

29. What kind of activities do you like to do on your birthday?
a. Ski
b. Go swimming at the beach
c. Just take a drive and see all the bright oranges and reds on the trees
d. Do some spring cleaning

;)

[Ladewig]

1) I'm not OPPOSED to double-blind testing. I just don't think that astrology is really ready for it yet. A couple thousand years of church interference (to put it lightly) can do that to a science.

I am completely unfamiliar with the church's interference with astrology. Would you please briefly describe it and give its beginning and ending dates? Citations will be helpful.

[Ladewig]

These are the detailed rules I’m talking about. No one can explain how they were derived (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/03/the_astrology_c.html).


Excellent link.

[Bronze Dog]

Sure, with questions like

29. What kind of activities do you like to do on your birthday?
a. Ski
b. Go swimming at the beach
c. Just take a drive and see all the bright oranges and reds on the trees
d. Do some spring cleaning

;)
Took me a second to get that. Wonder if that means Australians have different chakra auras or something. ;)

[Jon.]

If astrology is all about the mechanical interaction with astronomical bodies like stars and planets, how do man-made satellites affect the "forces" that are supposed to be acting upon us?

[Ashles]

If astrology is all about the mechanical interaction with astronomical bodies like stars and planets, how do man-made satellites affect the "forces" that are supposed to be acting upon us?
And what about objects like the phone on my desk, or my shirt which must exert far more influence on my body than a distant star?

[tyoungblood@bellsouth.net]

Dave (Sunnysays) claims his account has been suspended, and he's saying it's because of his posts on this thread. Can the moderator confirm or deny this?

[RichardR]

Dave (Sunnysays) claims his account has been suspended, and he's saying it's because of his posts on this thread. Can the moderator confirm or deny this?

Well (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53261):

Sunnysays has been suspended
This account has been temporarily suspended whilst we deal with some irregularities.

[Upchurch]

Dave (Sunnysays) claims his account has been suspended, and he's saying it's because of his posts on this thread. Can the moderator confirm or deny this?
Dave registered under false pretenses. The suspension is only because of his posts insofar as Sunnysays is supposed to be his "sister's" account, not his. He is free to create his own account and continue the discussion, provided he complies with the registration requirements.

[Ladewig]

Dave (Sunnysays) claims his account has been suspended, and he's saying it's because of his posts on this thread.

A very testable claim. If Dave re-registers under an account that does not include someone else's name and makes similar posts and is suspended a second time, then he is right. However, if he makes similar posts and he is not suspended, then he is wrong.

So, how's chances of getting Dave to re-register?

[aggle-rithm]

The claim that astrology is like legitimate science because there is inherent "fuzziness" in the interpretations really stuck in my craw. I'm not even sure what a "craw" is, but it's definately stuck in it.

Consider the science of Nasononomy, which I just made up. By blowing my nose and examining the mucus pattern, I can predict the future. Given enough time, I could come up with a complex set of procedures to follow in order to derive the correct interpretation, and it will seem exactly like a real intellectual exercise. Sometimes my predictions will come true, most often they will not. In truth, the whole exercise of examining the snot and going through the calculations is unnecessary, since I am only guessing about the future in the end, and I can do that with or without kleenex.

The only difference between Nasononomy and Astrology is that Astrology has been around longer, and more idiots believe in it.

[chracatoa]

(...) Sometimes my predictions will come true, most often they will not.

You understimate your abilities. You can be right most of the time. Check my predictions: (1) you'll find someone interesting in your work in the following months; (2) someone is/was/will envy your position and (s)he'll talk about you behind your back (no way to check this if it's false); (3) You'll make a decision in the following two years that will have a great impact in your life; (4) one of your friends (or friend's friend) is in serious trouble (be vague about the problem). Etc.

And if you know the person you can get even better results. For instance, I 'see' a lot of traveling in the future for my sister. Well, our family lives more than a thousand miles from her, and her husband's family lives a thousand miles away in another direction. You do the math...

[Bronze Dog]

Consider the science of Nasononomy...
[Red Dwarf, probably butchered]

"One of the things that really disgusts me about you is when you blow your nose. I'll forego commenting on the burbling noises, and skip to the end. When you're done, you don't simply throw away the tissue. You open it and examine its contents. I mean, REALLY... What do you expect to see? One of Rembrandt's lost works?"

[/Red Dwarf]

[Ladewig]

Hey, tyoungblood, if DaveX isn't coming back, would you ask him nicely about this question?

I am completely unfamiliar with the church's interference with astrology. Would you please briefly describe it and give its beginning and ending dates? Citations will be helpful.

I really would like to know more about it.

[fishbait]

There are some that really bother me, though-- like having untrained people figure out what astrological information is theirs?. OK. Fair enough.Finally, let me say a bit about the Claus links... I thought they were pretty feeble. The bit about Jeffrey Dahmer was amusing, but I sure would like to know what his birth data was so I could see the chart myself. (Birthday, time, place). If it's as wildly off as they say, it might be interesting to seeGood idea! You can evaluate the chart yourself. As you stated above, only trained astrologers should handle this.As for myself, I have never actually done any astrology. I have a hard time with numbers, and there are quite a few calcuations one must do to create a chart of any reasonable level of accuracy. Oops!

Let's see if I have this straight:

Untrained people doing astrology really bothers you
You want to check a chart yourself because it appears "feeble"
You admit to never actually having done astrology yourself and have a hard time with numbersDoes this sum it up or have I missed something?

[Ladewig]

So that's how this thread ends?

Tyoungblood, can't you convince your friend to re-register under his own name?

Can't you convince him to post under his current account while pretending to be his sister e.g. ("Hi, I'm DaveX's sister and he told me to tell you that he thinks astrology produces useful results)?

You can't convince him to tell you what his responses to our questions are?

[trvlr2]

BronzeDog--Ya gotta open the kleenex to divine the implications...almost no nasonologist can penetrate the veil...

[hellaeon]

I think that, obviously, one of them is wrong. But I also think that without doing some decent, above-ground research into astrology itself (i.e. what works, what doesn't, codifying techniques, etc) that we won't have a good way of knowing. I'm really very much in favor of further study. I'm not a practicing astrologer myself.

Mate sorry to tell you, but its all BS.

I dont even know where I could try to start apart from what these guys have posted. And if in 4000 years or whatever it is astrology has yet to have a specific agreeable hypothesis on how it works....come on...dont be a fool...dont waste your time on such wishful wizardry.

Go study astronomy, at least its real.

Astrology cannot predict a solar eclipse (let alone anything else). Scienctists can. Right to the exact seconds. No questions asked. No pondering on whether it may have been the scientists or some special mind power.
Its all crap mate.

Next people will start believing in god...

[Day Fexx]

Hello, all--

It's been a while since this topic was hot. Hopefully, someone is monitoring the thread, and will let the others know there's some new activity.

Anyhow. While watching Teletubbies with my two-year-old, I had a thought. It occured to me that since the universe is a mechanical place, and that for something to be considered "in" the universe it would need to affect something else, or be affected by something else-- then everything "touches" (to use a really generic term) and therefore... you should (with increased knowledge) be able to fully understand past, present and future with complete clarity. This includes the proposed "snot-fortune-telling" from earlier in the thread. Obviously, some paths to knowledge of the future would be simpler, with snot-fortune-telling probably pretty low on the list.

I was actually pretty taken with my idea, so I decided to see what other folks had to say about it. Being an avid Wikipedia reader, I typed in something like "mechanical universe" which (at the time) brought me to the entry on "Mechanism" and from there read about "determinism". It was at this point that I was sort of miffed that my intro to philosphy course at university hadn't been so terribly boring-- but I slogged through anyway. Apparently, I'm not such a bad thinker. During a Teletubbies episode about dancing in mud puddles, I had managed to think my way through some major philosophical ideas. I have to admit that I don't QUITE grasp the quantum mechanics argument against determinism. Intuitively, it seems to me that when we have more information, the problem will dissolve. As for the "first cause" argument, it seems sort of silly, but I'll admit that I don't have a better explanation yet.

The main point of this post is that it seems incredibly logical that a system could be understood by understanding its parts, their behaviors, and the laws governing their universe. Perhaps I should put all of you morons on the offensive and ask: Why WOULDN'T it work?

This is obviously my last post, feel free to hash it out amongst yourselves. If anyone comes up with something intelligent, Tony knows where to send it. BYE! --Day Fexx

[Meffy]

I've nothing to add to the thread, just thought I'd mention that using your email address as a nickname means spammers' address harvesting bots are likely to pick up on it and bless you with a Biblical-sized flood of spam... You might want to consider picking another handle to decrease the problem.

Also, hi and welcome.

[edit] D'oh -- old thread, advice too late. Never mind!

[richardm]

since the universe is a mechanical place, and that for something to be considered "in" the universe it would need to affect something else, or be affected by something else-- then everything "touches" (to use a really generic term) and therefore... you should (with increased knowledge) be able to fully understand past, present and future with complete clarity.

Doesn't Chaos Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory) put the kibosh on the "future" part of your plan?

[Nucular]

This is obviously my last post
Well assuming that's because you're actually Sunnysays/DaveX, why not just come clean, clear up the irregularities (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53261) in your account details, and come and talk to us properly? It's an interesting topic, and you're an interesting poster.

Re: your recent post, I can't say I fully grasp quantum mechanics either - in fact, not at all - but it was my understanding that it simply introduces some inherent randomness into a system, which would make it impossible, in principle, to predict events using anything other than probabilistic approaches. It sounds like you're picturing a sort of Newtonian billiard-ball type of universe, which quantum mechanics, and as richardm pointed out, chaos theory, don't really allow for.

But I suppose my main question would be, did you intend your post to be an argument in favour of astrology? If so, how so?

[Cuddles]

The main point of this post is that it seems incredibly logical that a system could be understood by understanding its parts, their behaviors, and the laws governing their universe. Perhaps I should put all of you morons on the offensive and ask: Why WOULDN'T it work?

This is obviously my last post, feel free to hash it out amongst yourselves. If anyone comes up with something intelligent, Tony knows where to send it. BYE! --Day Fexx

We can predict human actions and emotions because we understand the motion of stars hundreds of light years away? This seems logical to you?

Since no-one seems to have pointed this out yet, you are the one making the claim so you are the one that needs to provide the evidence. I don't need to prove the IPU (Invisible Pink Unicorn) doesn't exist because there is no reason to think that it does. The same is true for astrology.

Edit : I actually do understand quantum mechanics, but Nucular is entirely right that it adds more randomness to the system, not less. In fact, in a purely Newtonian universe only poor data prevents the prediction of everything. In a quantum universe there is inherent randomness in the behaviour of particles and not just our observations of them.

[FramerDave]

One of the fundemental characteristics of science is that the results can be duplicated and reproduced by others, no matter what they believe. I might believe that an acid and base will not react when combined, but damn, they do each and every time I try it. And they will for someone trying it on the other side of the globe, wherever they are. And they will if that person is Hindu, Muslim, Christian or atheistic.

Which leads me to my question. Could a believer in the predictive power of astrology point me to a resource that would lay out all the principles involved in casting a horoscope, determining a person's personality and predicting future events through astrology? A source that lays out THE tenets, an authoritative source that is accepted by the "good" astrologers mentioned?

I would really appreciate the opportunity to learn more about it, test it out myself and see how it works. Whether I "believe" in astrology or not should play no role in using the science of astrology and I should be able to get accurate results.

Any sources?

[Yahzi]

The main point of this post is that it seems incredibly logical that a system could be understood by understanding its parts, their behaviors, and the laws governing their universe. Perhaps I should put all of you morons on the offensive and ask: Why WOULDN'T it work?

This is obviously my last post, feel free to hash it out amongst yourselves. If anyone comes up with something intelligent, Tony knows where to send it. BYE! --Day Fexx
If this is your last post, then why should we respond at all?

In the unlikely event that anyone else waded through your drivel, and wonders at the answer to your question, I offer this simple example:

Chess.

There are only 32 pieces and 64 squares on the board. How more mechanistic can you get? Yet human beings can still beat the smartest computers some of the time. How is that? Why can't the computer just calculate the perfect move every time?

The answer is because the 32 peices and 64 squares of a chess board, combined with a number of turns, yeilds more combinations than there are particles in the universe.

Chess is completely deterministic, and completely undeterminable. Just because the future is predetermined from the past does not mean we can know the future; because calculating the future that accurately takes longer than it takes for the future to arrive.

[Nucular]

Chess is completely deterministic, and completely undeterminable. Just because the future is predetermined from the past does not mean we can know the future; because calculating the future that accurately takes longer than it takes for the future to arrive.
Doesn't this assume that human free will is deterministic, which as yet seems an unresolved question?

[drkitten]

Doesn't this assume that human free will is deterministic, which as yet seems an unresolved question?

No, it's doesn't.

[RSLancastr]

When I watch Teletubbies, I think of different questions, such as "What the hell is a babie's face doing floating up in the sky?" and "What were the creators of this show smoking?"

[The Bad Astronomer]

I can easily put a lid on this: studies have shown astrology doesn't work. Carefully executed, well-crafted, and highly-researched studies.

And some incredibly smart (and really all around great guy) put it on his website for all to see (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html).

The onus is on astrologers to show that it works. They've had 2000+ years, and they still can't do it. And in just a few short months, scientists showed that astrology doesn't work.

CLANG!

That was the sound of a case being firmly closed.

Next?

[CFLarsen]

The onus is on astrologers to show that it works. They've had 2000+ years, and they still can't do it.

You are way too nice, Phil. You are leaving out the pertinent point.

They won't do it.

I've encountered high-profile astrologers who simply did not see the need to prove their own claims. They don't think it is necessary!

They cannot see any problems in feeding these banalities to people, whilst pointing to a plethora of anecdotes as well as Gauquelin and those who they think prove them right. But they shy away from any real test.

Why? Because they know they are wrong. They know.

I realize that there is probably no limit to how much people can deceive themselves. But I have a very hard time accepting that the "Star Astrologers" don't know they are frauds. These are not simple, ignorant, uneducated people. They know exactly what you and other astrology-debunkers are talking about.

They know you are right. They know they are wrong. And yet, they keep feeding the beast.

[NobbyNobbs]

1) I'm not OPPOSED to double-blind testing. I just don't think that astrology is really ready for it yet. A couple thousand years of church interference (to put it lightly) can do that to a science.



I'm not OPPOSED to double-blind testing. i just don't think that the heliocentric theory is really ready for it yet. A couple thousand years of church interference (to put it lightly) can do that to a science.

[Nucular]

No, it's doesn't.
So okay, sorry to derail but I'm intrigued - this is obviously a thing I'm not aware of.

Could you explain? In chess as I see it, yes there are always a finite number of moves available, which change in a deterministic fashion, but which one is chosen relies on free will, shurely?

I mean, I'm not a good chess player, which means that when an opponent tries to 'trap' me I tend to do something weird, because I've noticed neither the enticement nor the trap. It doesn't take long before they realise I'm not being fiendishly clever, but instead haven't noticed. My weird moves aren't determined by the game, other than that I've selected one from the plethora available - they're determined by me. No?

Chess is completely deterministic

Or have I got the wrong end of the chess stick?

[TheChadd]

The main point of this post is that it seems incredibly logical that a system could be understood by understanding its parts, their behaviors, and the laws governing their universe. Perhaps I should put all of you morons on the offensive and ask: Why WOULDN'T it work?

Yes, this question has been posed before. Prior to quantum mechanics it was believed that if a demon came into existance knowing every part of every system in the universe that it could predict what was going to happen in the future.

The conditions which lead to the arrangement of neurons are a result of other processes though. The only escape from scientific determinism is quantum mechanics - before this it was hypothesised that if a superpowerful demon (could be replaced by computer, although the limits on processing power make this impossible) knew the position and momentum of every particle in the universe, he could discover its past and future. Quantum mechanics doesn't give you free will, it just says that your actions are probabilistic rather than determined. The uncertainty principle, which says that it is impossible to determine the position and velocity of a particle seems to exclude the possibility of an all-knowing god that is constrained by logic, as you would have the contradiction between the impossibility of certain knowledge and the all-powerful nature of god.

An interesting theory is Stephen HAwking's flexiverse, which says that as we observe the past we determine it - similar to determining the state of Schroedinger's cat, which is both alive and dead. It is the ultimate version of the anthropic principle, saying that we observe this universe because it is one in which we exist. In other words - all the possibilities in the universe have happened and we see this one because we can.

Ok, but even if it was true that we had a determinist universe, what makes you think astrology is the means to this? It seems (in all i've heard about the topic) that the only way to make any predictions even in such a universe would be to know everything in the universe at the current time - does astrology know everything in the universe, taking into account the smallest grains of sand on the desert surface of planet x?