Randi`s poor tests

[woodwater]

Hi
go to this link. He refers to Randi`s work at the end.Comments?

http://www.bobmarksastrologer.com/skeptics.htm

:)

[trvlr2]

WW - It's a bad link.

[Zep]

Just two - first, your link doesn't work (have you checked the spelling perchance?), and second, Mr Marks might care to answer some of the questions instead of avoiding them all the time. He accuses skeptics of all sorts of fallacies, then goes on to commit them blatantly himself!

The response is simple: If astrology works, get Mr marks to apply for the JREF $1,000,000 Paranormal Challenge, and prove it beyond all doubt. It's all absolutely fair and perfectly above board, so what has he got to lose? The application form and conditions are readily available via the main page of this site.

So when will do you think we expect to see Bob Marks application? Soon? I'm betting he won't, and will have a plethora of excuses why not! ;) :)

[eri]

Yeah, it's pretty useless. Right at the beginning he states that skeptics should just ask for proof - as we have been doing. But while he goes through and attempts to refute people's arguments (mostly by claiming that the claim the person is debunking was never made, although I have seen all of those claims made by internet astrologers), he never actually supplies any proof. Which pretty much makes his rebuttle useless. Where is the proof?

Woodwater, you keep posting stuff and asking for comments. What's YOUR opinion? What did YOU think of the article?

[De_Bunk]

Woodwater...

You are just another joker from some board that cannot deal with the 'what is reality'....just another 'AmyWilson' wannabee

Prove us all wrong...

Trouble is...I know full well you wont..

You've been marked as an idiot troll...

You have the option to prove everyone wrong...or not...

Your choice...

DB

[BenK]

Now we come to James, the Amazing, Randi, a gentleman who truly lives up to his name. Mr. Randi, for those few of you who may still not be familiar with his work, has made exposure of fraud and stupidity his calling in life. He certainly has found no shortage of material. Randi is to be commended for his efforts to remind us all how easy it is to be fooled. He did a demonstration once with a bunch of college students. They were told that an “astrologer” was preparing a personal horoscope for each of them and that they were to evaluate it. Most of the students said that the “horoscope” fit them to a tee, even those who said that they didn’t believe in astrology. They were then asked to change “readings” with the person next to them. Of course, most were surprised to find out that they all had the same “reading”.

Doesn’t this “disprove” astrology? Not at all. Suppose each student were given a standard, accepted psychological test instead, and then given these same “horoscope readings” and told that these were the test results. Wouldn’t their answers have been the same? Would this have “disproved” a standard, accepted psychological test? Of course not. What Randi demonstrated here, as he has done so often, is that people are gullible and easily fooled. The results say nothing about the validity of astrology. Other researchers are not so careful. There was an article in in the July 1995 edition of Skeptical Inquirer magazine a few years back titled “Did the Moon Sink the Titanic”. The author, Richard L. Branham, Jr; examined the dates of several disasters at sea and found that the sign position of the Moon showed no correlation at all. Unfortunately for the author, no astrologer (at least to my knowledge) ever claimed that it did. Another strawman fallacy. Had the author taken the time to study some astrology, he would not have bothered to do the study

I assume this is what your refering to. I agree with the author, this doesn't disprove astrology, but was this Randi intent? I doubt it, as this author says "people are gullible and easily fooled".

Show me a test that has been contucted to actually test the validity of astrology.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Proving that astrology does not work is difficult, as most cases of proving a negative are. The experiments of Randi to which the author refers, are not provided as evidence of astrology not working, but are instead shown as evidence for alternate theories that have been put forth by critics of astrology.

[woodwater]

Woodwater...

You are just another joker from some board that cannot deal with the 'what is reality'....just another 'AmyWilson' wannabee

Prove us all wrong...

Trouble is...I know full well you wont..

You've been marked as an idiot troll...

You have the option to prove everyone wrong...or not...

Your choice...

DB

my friend
i couldnt care less what you think. you cant see me and youll never seeme,thats the advantage of nternet:)

[Ladewig]

Bob Waters: Notice again how Sandbek, like Franknoi, avoids the questions: “Does astrology work?” and “How may it be tested?” in order to indulge in ad hominums.


Notice again how Bob Waters does not answer the question: "How may it be tested?" The whole counterargument that Bob Waters makes could have been simply avoided if he just provided evidence that astrology works. Stop whining about how your critics are attacking you unfairly and show the evidence.

Dr. Sandbek:They actually believe that the names the Greeks arbitrarily gave to the planets mean something. How foolish.

Bob Waters: First of all, how do you know that the names were given arbitrarily? Could it be that the ancient Greeks observed an effect first and gave the name later?

I guess that could have happened. Of course, if we had the tiniest bit of evidence that the Greeks (or other ancients) observed the effect before naming the planets, then it would be much easier to believe. That is Skeptico's point here: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/03/the_astrology_c.html

------

So, Woodwater, how's chances of looking at any really good evidence for astrology? Can you provide links to peer-reviewed studies showing that astrology works?

[Admiral]

my friend
i couldnt care less what you think. you cant see me and youll never seeme,thats the advantage of nternet:)

And woodwater thereby firmly establishes that he is nothing more than a troll.

Unfortunately, we'll need to go on a few more pages before we can post recipes, so...

Woodwater, have you considered that the link doesn't even say Randi's test was bad, just that it didn't prove astrology wrong? What it did show was that people's gut instinct about whether a horoscope applies to them is an inaccurate measure of its accuracy.

Now, Randi never claimed he could prove astrology wrong. The reason is that proving a negative is really a very difficult tasks. For example, prove that there are not little green fairies under your bed that disappear whenever you look under it.

What Randi did claim is that no one can prove astrology is real. If you challenged me to prove that there ARE little green fairies under your bed that disappeared every time anyone looked under it, I would have a difficult task indeed...

[Strider1974]

woodwater have a look at this link http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html
James Randi is not the only expert who has issues with astrology.
In the link you posted the author seems to be stating that because there are frauds that dosen't mean the real thing does not exist - if you accept this then....I am a Nigerian prince and my father just died intestate.

[Beleth]

My comment is "what a pile of strawmen!"

[Ersby]

From the article:

All the long range forces we know in the universe get weaker as objects get farther apart. But, as you might expect in an Earth-centered system made thousands of years ago, astrological influences do not depend on distance at all.

Why would you expect that?

It's drivel.

:)

[CFLarsen]

But, as you might expect in an Earth-centered system made thousands of years ago, astrological influences do not depend on distance at all.

Actually, this is not entirely true. Distance does matter, because they don't include any of the (what, hundreds?) planets found outside our own solar system.

Yet, Pluto's influence is as great as Mars'. :rolleyes:

It's not just drivel. It's yet another example of Astrological double-thinking.

[Mojo]

From the article:

All the long range forces we know in the universe get weaker as objects get farther apart. But, as you might expect in an Earth-centered system made thousands of years ago, astrological influences do not depend on distance at all.


Why would you expect that? Because the people who originally came up with the idea were just making stuff up, and they didn't know about the inverse square law.

[MRC_Hans]

I think a reasonably logical argument for this is that the influences were mapped by early astrologers "as is", thus they did not take distance into account. Much like ancient star maps simply list apparant magnitudes, and such observations are, of course, no less valid just because we now know that due to different distances, the actual magnitudes are different.

Hans

[Elaedith]

Hi
go to this link. He refers to Randi`s work at the end.Comments?

http://www.bobmarksastrologer.com/skeptics.htm

:)

Nobody claims that this type of demonstration disproves astrology.
What is shows is that subjective validation gives no reliable evidence of validity.
Yet pseudoscientists rely heavily on subjective validation (personal demonstrations and testimonials from satisfied customers) to support and advertise their services.

[Mr. Stick]

They were told that an “astrologer” was preparing a personal horoscope for each of them and that they were to evaluate it. Most of the students said that the “horoscope” fit them to a tee, even those who said that they didn’t believe in astrology. They were then asked to change “readings” with the person next to them. Of course, most were surprised to find out that they all had the same “reading”.

Doesn’t this “disprove” astrology? Not at all. Suppose each student were given a standard, accepted psychological test instead, and then given these same “horoscope readings” and told that these were the test results. Wouldn’t their answers have been the same? Would this have “disproved” a standard, accepted psychological test? Of course not. What Randi demonstrated here, as he has done so often, is that people are gullible and easily fooled. The results say nothing about the validity of astrology.
As I remember the test, the purpose was to show how people are willing to accept horoscopes even though they are not made specially for them, and that the fact that people regard horoscopes as very precise does not validate them. Randi never claimed that this test disproved astrology.

They were then asked to change “readings” with the person next to them.
Nope, it was the person behind them. This guy is totally unreliable. ;)

[ChristineR]

It's not a test, and Randi has never claimed that it disproves astrology. It's a demonstration, and a very effective one.

A similar test would consist of astrologers making up horoscopes for the entire group, then giving people all the horoscopes and asking them to pick out their own. These sorts of tests also give similar results, as no one can pick out their own horoscope. Of course these never "disprove" astrology either, because the astrologers just claim that whoever made up the horoscopes wasn't a very good astrologer and that horoscopes are never cut and dried anyhow.

[Indolent Wretch]

I am a Nigerian prince and my father just died intestate.

I wonder if I may be so bold, do you need any help trying to get the money out of the country?

For a small percentage I would be delighted to give you my bank details!

It's not like an opportunity like this comes around very often.

[Zep]

Unless... Mr Marks himself would care to throw his hat in the ring and give the JREF Challenge a shot??

Still no response to this, I see... Can I call "misguided munchkin" yet?

[MRC_Hans]

Whenever somebody says "this does not disprove...", they are right, but fail to prove their point. You can only disprove something if there is an exclusive situation. That is, by proving Earth is round, I can disprove it being flat.

Nobody can disprove astrology. What various tests, like the one mentioned, do is to provide an alternative explanation to an observation used to argue for astrology. Thus, when a proponent argues that so and so many people have had their horoscope taken and find that ti fits perfectly, you can show that this may be due to something different, and thereby making it impossible to use that evidence as proof for astrology.

Hans

[De_Bunk]

Strider1974...

I can help...

Oh wait...sarcasm...

Doh...!!!

DB

[Mojo]

Unless... Mr Marks himself would care to throw his hat in the ring and give the JREF Challenge a shot?? I doubt it. Woodwater's first post on the forum stated that he was applying for the challenge using Chinese astrology "as this is more logical and specific than western or vedic". Nothing has come of that yet.

[Zep]

I doubt it. Woodwater's first post on the forum stated that he was applying for the challenge using Chinese astrology "as this is more logical and specific than western or vedic". Nothing has come of that yet.Hokay. *sigh* SNAFU

[CFLarsen]

my friend
i couldnt care less what you think. you cant see me and youll never seeme,thats the advantage of nternet:)

Fair enough.

What do you think?

[Azrael 5]

Its true :)


*Sorry it's spreading*

[woodwater]

Its true :)


*Sorry it's spreading*

thanks for your comments. However Rudolf Smit said randis forum are die hard skeptics. No evidence will ever be enough for you.

[sat556]

What do his words have to do with anything? I'm sure you can think for yourself. So what are YOUR opinions?

[ChristineR]

thanks for your comments. However Rudolf Smit said randis forum are die hard skeptics. No evidence will ever be enough for you.

Not so. Pass a simple test such as the one I outlined, and Randi will give you a million dollars and we will all take you seriously. Sure, we'll look for mundane explainations, but you'll have plenty of chances to repeat your test and eventually everyone here will congratulate you.

[woodwater]

What do his words have to do with anything? I'm sure you can think for yourself. So what are YOUR opinions?
like most astrologers he becomes agressive when cornered.
I wont take the challenge,im just looking for different opinions. Thers always new data available. You havent disproved astrology yet. Time will tell.
I keep doing charts,but i use critical skills now.:)

[drfrank]

thanks for your comments. However Rudolf Smit said randis forum are die hard skeptics. No evidence will ever be enough for you.
And no evidence is obviously more than enough for you ;)

[woodwater]

Not so. Pass a simple test such as the one I outlined, and Randi will give you a million dollars and we will all take you seriously. Sure, we'll look for mundane explainations, but you'll have plenty of chances to repeat your test and eventually everyone here will congratulate you.
after 30 years with astrology i dont know what to do. I got used to think about people in terms of their signs. Now im lost.
Science alone is not enough. And it is a bit slow.
i dont know what to read instead of astrology.
any suggestions?:(

[petre]

after 30 years with astrology i dont know what to do. I got used to think about people in terms of their signs. Now im lost.
Science alone is not enough. And it is a bit slow.
i dont know what to read instead of astrology.
any suggestions?:(

I find peer-reviewed studies to be the most accurate, though they can be a bit dull and steeped in field-specific jargon.

[Strider1974]

after 30 years with astrology i dont know what to do. I got used to think about people in terms of their signs. Now im lost.
Science alone is not enough. And it is a bit slow.
i dont know what to read instead of astrology.
any suggestions?:(

Try the Science of Discworld books by Pratchett, Cohen and Stewart. These are excellent books aimed at educating the layman about modern scientific belief along with some very funny humour by Terry Pratchett.
Just remember, that just because a belief makes you feel better doesn't make it right.

[Ladewig]

Science alone is not enough. And it is a bit slow.


And astrology is somehow quicker? They've been playing the same song for over 2000 years.

I dont know what to read instead of astrology.
any suggestions?:(


I found this book quite entertaining: Peter Huston's "Scams from the Great Beyond : How to make easy money off of ESP, astrology, UFOs, and crop circles." If you are still tied to astrology, you could skip that chapter - the rest of the book is amusing and enlightening.

[Mojo]

I wont take the challenge,im just looking for different opinions. Remember your first post on this forum? Originally posted by woodwater (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1513307#post1513307)
Hi folks
I accepted the million dollar challenge t prove chinese astrology works as this is more logical and specific than western or vedic.Chickening out, huh?

Thers always new data available. You havent disproved astrology yet. The usual attempt to shift the burden of proof. If proponents of astrology claim that it works, it's up to them to prove it, not others to disprove it.

Time will tell. Several thousand years, and astrology has yet to provide any decent evidence that it works.

[ChristineR]

Woodwater, the problem isn't that you aren't a good enough astrologer. The problem is that astrology doesn't work. No one has ever been able to show it works. The people you think are better astrologers than you are actually using other techniques, like cold reading and plain old cheating. Your "master astrologer" friends won't take the tests--not because they're shy and eccentric, but because they know they won't be allowed to cheat.

You don't have anything to be ashamed of. You aren't the first person to fooled by this. Plenty of people started out believing and were sure that their subject would pass the tests. It's human nature to see more in astrology than is there.

And Mojo, hush! He's not chickening out. He's getting educated.

[Belz...]

Science alone is not enough. And it is a bit slow.

Live with it. The universe need not conform to your wishes, and believing in woo won't solve your problems.

[J. Arthur Hastur]

This Bob Marks fellow is the archetypical charlatan. Instead of answering his critics and proving that his 'magic' works, he in turn personally attacks them as 'unsound' and 'unreasonable'.

It is much easier to attack others than it is to prove a false theory.

[Psi Baba]

Notice again how Bob Waters does not answer the question: "How may it be tested?" The whole counterargument that Bob Waters makes could have been simply avoided if he just provided evidence that astrology works. Stop whining about how your critics are attacking you unfairly and show the evidence.Not only that, but he repeatedly uses the same logical fallacies he accuses Dr. Frankoi using in attempting to refute his statements. Plus he constantly relies on the No True Astrologer variation.

Science alone is not enough. And it is a bit slow.
Not enough for what? Too slow compared to what? Please explain. Believe me, science moves faster than you could possibly keep up with. I suggest you start reading now.

[cajela]

I was so glad when I clicked on this, because I thought it was going to be Randi's medical tests showing him to have a poor prognosis. I'm so relieved.

Carry on!

[alfaniner]

The odd spacing of the thread title's words made it look on first glance as "Randi' spoor tests".


(sorry...)