carlson test and debunking randi

[idunno]

i think youll find these interesting

it seems the skeptics are afraid

paulohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwQTS6yuQhU&mode=related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwQTS6yuQhU&mode=related&search=)

Astrologer James Young issues a direct challenge to critics of his videos [such as UncleFeedle and shanedk] to prove they have sufficient knowledge of the subject to be taken seriously. Have they? So far only 2 have applied for the challenge, lovasip backed out, the other failed. And the rest? Every tactic in the book has been used to avoid the challenge. They say [now], as feedlemania deadens their brains, that it doesn't matter HOW Astrology works, only IF it works. Nice try, but it is just another evasion. Care to try my challenge UncleFeedle? Thought not!

Feedle says that no Astrologer has entered his 'debate'. Is it any wonder with such biased minds, and comments from Feedle like 'Astrology is a crock of ****'.

Shanedk had to pay a lawyer to get his libellous videos back on and falsely accuses me of lying - but then most of what he says isn't based on fact. Legal victory does not mean moral victory. (more (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwQTS6yuQhU&mode=related&search=#)) (less (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwQTS6yuQhU&mode=related&search=#))

http://www.firststop-astrology.com/Astrofacts/Fakes.htm

http://www.firststop-astrology.com/Astrofacts/BWC.htm

http://www.firststop-astrology.com/YouTube/Video1.htm

see also his misgivings about randis test in the same link:D

[idunno]

http://www.firststop-astrology.com/YouTube/Video1.htm

as youi casn see at the bottom of the link the carlson test is a sham

[Tricky]

This is great.


Over 95% of Astrologers are fake.

Yeah. Exactly 5% over 95%.

[Czarcasm]

"I challenge you skeptics to agree with what I claim astrology really is!"
Uh...right.

[idunno]

sorry thats an old one. i studied astrology and i can assure you he follows tradition.he doesnt uses asteroids, nodes and such crap

[idunno]

This is great.

Yeah. Exactly 5% over 95%.

are you surprised?
Astrology is not regulated. What did you expect?:D

[Czarcasm]

sorry thats an old one. i studied astrology and i can assure you he follows tradition.he doesnt uses asteroids, nodes and such crapIt's so nice to know which crap he discards and which crap he follows.

[Tricky]

are you surprised?
Astrology is not regulated. What did you expect?:D
I suspect that they'll never regulate it properly, which would be to only allow astrologers that could prove that astrology worked.

[idunno]

I suspect that they'll never regulate it properly, which would be to only allow astrologers that could prove that astrology worked.


Mockery!! The answer when there is no answer.

Unfortunately im finding out pretty fast scientists care a lot more about their Bank accounts than I thought, so Im not surprised about shams like the Carlson test:)

[Mojo]

They say [now], as feedlemania deadens their brains, that it doesn't matter HOW Astrology works, only IF it works. Nice try, but it is just another evasion.


Do you claim that astrology actually does something?

If so, what?

[idunno]

Do you claim that astrology actually does something?

If so, what?

i only take criticism from those who studied the subject.
Do not pretend to know the subject cause I would find easily:D

[Czarcasm]

i only take criticism from those who studied the subject.
Do not pretend to know the subject cause I would find easily:D

Translation: "I will only take criticism from those who agree with my views."

Uh...right.

[idunno]

Translation: "I will only take criticism from those who agree with my views."

Uh...right.

Just what I thought. A typical case of projection.
Randi`s forum is notorious for that:D

[Mojo]

i only take criticism from those who studied the subject.
Do not pretend to know the subject cause I would find easily:D


I wasn't offering criticism: I was asking questions. If you wish others to be better informed about astrology, it might be a good idea to try to answer them.

[Mojo]

By the way, I have it on good authority (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67496) that astrology has been tested and failed.

[Tricky]

Mockery!! The answer when there is no answer.
What is the question?

Unfortunately im finding out pretty fast scientists care a lot more about their Bank accounts than I thought, so Im not surprised about shams like the Carlson test:)Scientists? I know a lot of scientists and usually they are not the ones raking in the money. They do the discovering and other people make the money off their discoveries.

[idunno]

I wasn't offering criticism: I was asking questions. If you wish others to be better informed about astrology, it might be a good idea to try to answer them.

astrology shows trends. for example i felt an impulse to study(took up 3 courses) earlier this year while Mercury(planet of the mind) was approaching the highest point of the chart. It was not Placebo as I wasnt aware of that.
It tells personality traits as well.
But unlike some claim it doesnt necessarily tell the future. If a certain day is good for love but you stay home, nothing will happen.

But dont ask me to read for cause im no expert. James Clayton seems to be good from the free knowledge he provides,. I found him more accurate than the average astrologer:D

[Hokulele]

Which system are you using? Aztec? Chinese? Indian? Hawaiian? European? Which ephemeris? What type of calendar, arithmetic or astronomical? Are you using sidereal or tropical coordinates?

[idunno]

By the way, I have it on good authority (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67496) that astrology has been tested and failed.


2 got 3 out of 5 right which is good if you bear in mind only about 5% of astrologers really know their business

[idunno]

Which system are you using? Aztec? Chinese? Indian? Hawaiian? European? Which ephemeris? What type of calendar, arithmetic or astronomical? Are you using sidereal or tropical coordinates?

european, tropical

[idunno]

is water really wet?????:confused:

[Hokulele]

european, tropical


And why is this more accurate than egyptian/tropical?

[idunno]

I wasn't offering criticism: I was asking questions. If you wish others to be better informed about astrology, it might be a good idea to try to answer them.

ill give an example as soon i have time:D

[Hokulele]

Oh, and I almost forgot, which ephemeris?

[idunno]

Oh, and I almost forgot, which ephemeris?

US naval observatory:D

[idunno]

US naval observatory:D

here is an example.
this is what james says about gemini rising, my rising sign, and what tradition says, though i can see he adds his experience as i had similar experiences.
This is not as vague as « you are normally social, confident, but inside more insecure and sometimes need to be alone».

Your personality suggests someone who tends to live on nervous energy and who is always on the move. You like to think, speak, write, travel and generally be on the move, changing from one subject or location to the next with consummate ease. You can be very lively. Never a dull moment - unless you get bored, that is. Boredom is the worst thing that can happen to you. Your body language compliments what you are saying, using gestures to emphasise a word or phrase.

The one thing you are is adaptable. You just love change and ever-changing situations. 'Variety is the spice of life' someone once wrote. No, for you variety is an absolute MUST, without it life would be so dull. You do need lots of stimulus and constant interests. Resting, or even staying still , is not easy - there's too much to do! Your versatility is almost legendary. I think it's a safe bet that you can do two things at the same time - or more. Watching the TV while having a telephone conversation is just one example. You can turn your hand to anything and you learn so quickly.

Being an intelligent soul you are noted for being clever and informed. Learning, in fact any kind of education, really appeals. All that knowledge - you simply have to know. You absorb information like a sponge and once your enthusiasm is fired up you learn so quickly. Some folk may accuse you of being a, 'a mine of useless information'. But, what would they know - it's all useful information, and to you it is food for the mind. You like to communicate through speaking, writing, and telephone calls. Getting about and traveling also appeals, you just like the thrill of movement and ever-changing scenarios.

You have the gift of humour. Laughter comes naturally and you can see the funny side of any situation, especially if it involves someone else getting into trouble. Never stuck for a witty comment, you can liven up the most austere situation with some clever quip. It isn't that you have to think about these things, they just come naturally, off the top of your head, so to speak. Sometimes you surprise even yourself by what comes out of your mouth so spontaneously. You are good fun to be around.
Your ruling planet has only difficult aspects.
Your ruling planet - Mercury - has difficult aspects which modify the way in which you express yourself. Your nervousness gets in the way of easy self expression and you lack confidence which, in turn, affects your communication skills. Sometimes you will find that it isn't easy to make yourself understood or to express your opinions adequately. You just 'lock up' and feel inhibited. At other times you will chatter endlessly, repeating the same point in many different ways as if afraid people will not understand you. More likely, you are afraid of silence, it feels uncomfortable. Misunderstandings are so easy. You mean to say one thing but somehow it comes out all wrong. Your opinions change rapidly, especially to win an argument.

Learning is not easy. There may have been problems in your early education which was affected or even halted in some way by events beyond your control. The problem now is that you try to take on board too many ideas, as if you are afraid you might miss something. You may start to read a book and never finish it, learn a new skill yet never complete the course. Your restless, nervous nature seems to want to move on to other things. Rather than learn and be original you are inclined to imitate or borrow from others.

You tend to be diffuse with too many things on the go at the same time, so continuity becomes a problem as indeed does completing tasks. Your nature is to be nervous, excitable and restless. You have difficulty in staying still or resting and you are prone to nervous exhaustion as a result. It is important to realise that all the talents and abilities previously mentioned are yours for the asking. Once you learn to slow down, taking one thing at a time and also learning the art of relaxation, you will find a new lease of life. Remember, the mind a great servant but a bad master. The mind is something you are well equipped to deal with.
Your ruling planet has Mixed aspects.
Both interpretations are possible - not at the same time, they will tend to alternate.


--- and here is my Sun position. As you can see they are very different signs
The result of this combination in my opinion is that because of gemini i find it difficult to focus in one sign, unlike typical capricorn and do not always follow my principles and values of honesty and high principles. The sun is what we want to be and how we want to shine. the rising sign is the more dynamic part of personality, the biological personality,spontaneous, of which we often are not aware until someone points it out to us. We tend to think we are our sun sign, but often people see another side of us.:D

Sun in Capricorn
Cautious and deliberate. Highly principled and trustworthy. Reliable and dependable. Values honesty and straight dealing.
Aspires to be a success in life and to have a position of responsibility. Enterprising and keen to get on. Can see the greater picture and plan a way to succeed. Endless patience and determination. Businesslike, professional, highly efficient. Takes work and responsibilities seriously. Works tirelessly, very conscientious.

Rigid outlook. Far to conventional. May have to live within strictures dictated by others, afraid to break free. Insecure. Rules and regulations dominate life. Expects much but gives little.
May tend to hoard, afraid to spend though a sense of insecurity. Never seems to be enough.
Gloomy and pessimistic. Sees obstacles rather than challenges. Narrow view of life

[idunno]

where i say «focus on one sign» i meant « focus on one thing»

:D here is an example.
this is what james says about gemini rising, my rising sign, and what tradition says, though i can see he adds his experience as i had similar experiences.
This is not as vague as « you are normally social, confident, but inside more insecure and sometimes need to be alone».

Your personality suggests someone who tends to live on nervous energy and who is always on the move. You like to think, speak, write, travel and generally be on the move, changing from one subject or location to the next with consummate ease. You can be very lively. Never a dull moment - unless you get bored, that is. Boredom is the worst thing that can happen to you. Your body language compliments what you are saying, using gestures to emphasise a word or phrase.

The one thing you are is adaptable. You just love change and ever-changing situations. 'Variety is the spice of life' someone once wrote. No, for you variety is an absolute MUST, without it life would be so dull. You do need lots of stimulus and constant interests. Resting, or even staying still , is not easy - there's too much to do! Your versatility is almost legendary. I think it's a safe bet that you can do two things at the same time - or more. Watching the TV while having a telephone conversation is just one example. You can turn your hand to anything and you learn so quickly.

Being an intelligent soul you are noted for being clever and informed. Learning, in fact any kind of education, really appeals. All that knowledge - you simply have to know. You absorb information like a sponge and once your enthusiasm is fired up you learn so quickly. Some folk may accuse you of being a, 'a mine of useless information'. But, what would they know - it's all useful information, and to you it is food for the mind. You like to communicate through speaking, writing, and telephone calls. Getting about and traveling also appeals, you just like the thrill of movement and ever-changing scenarios.

You have the gift of humour. Laughter comes naturally and you can see the funny side of any situation, especially if it involves someone else getting into trouble. Never stuck for a witty comment, you can liven up the most austere situation with some clever quip. It isn't that you have to think about these things, they just come naturally, off the top of your head, so to speak. Sometimes you surprise even yourself by what comes out of your mouth so spontaneously. You are good fun to be around.
Your ruling planet has only difficult aspects.
Your ruling planet - Mercury - has difficult aspects which modify the way in which you express yourself. Your nervousness gets in the way of easy self expression and you lack confidence which, in turn, affects your communication skills. Sometimes you will find that it isn't easy to make yourself understood or to express your opinions adequately. You just 'lock up' and feel inhibited. At other times you will chatter endlessly, repeating the same point in many different ways as if afraid people will not understand you. More likely, you are afraid of silence, it feels uncomfortable. Misunderstandings are so easy. You mean to say one thing but somehow it comes out all wrong. Your opinions change rapidly, especially to win an argument.

Learning is not easy. There may have been problems in your early education which was affected or even halted in some way by events beyond your control. The problem now is that you try to take on board too many ideas, as if you are afraid you might miss something. You may start to read a book and never finish it, learn a new skill yet never complete the course. Your restless, nervous nature seems to want to move on to other things. Rather than learn and be original you are inclined to imitate or borrow from others.

You tend to be diffuse with too many things on the go at the same time, so continuity becomes a problem as indeed does completing tasks. Your nature is to be nervous, excitable and restless. You have difficulty in staying still or resting and you are prone to nervous exhaustion as a result. It is important to realise that all the talents and abilities previously mentioned are yours for the asking. Once you learn to slow down, taking one thing at a time and also learning the art of relaxation, you will find a new lease of life. Remember, the mind a great servant but a bad master. The mind is something you are well equipped to deal with.
Your ruling planet has Mixed aspects.
Both interpretations are possible - not at the same time, they will tend to alternate.


--- and here is my Sun position. As you can see they are very different signs
The result of this combination in my opinion is that because of gemini i find it difficult to focus in one sign, unlike typical capricorn and do not always follow my principles and values of honesty and high principles. The sun is what we want to be and how we want to shine. the rising sign is the more dynamic part of personality, the biological personality,spontaneous, of which we often are not aware until someone points it out to us. We tend to think we are our sun sign, but often people see another side of us.:D

Sun in Capricorn
Cautious and deliberate. Highly principled and trustworthy. Reliable and dependable. Values honesty and straight dealing.
Aspires to be a success in life and to have a position of responsibility. Enterprising and keen to get on. Can see the greater picture and plan a way to succeed. Endless patience and determination. Businesslike, professional, highly efficient. Takes work and responsibilities seriously. Works tirelessly, very conscientious.

Rigid outlook. Far to conventional. May have to live within strictures dictated by others, afraid to break free. Insecure. Rules and regulations dominate life. Expects much but gives little.
May tend to hoard, afraid to spend though a sense of insecurity. Never seems to be enough.
Gloomy and pessimistic. Sees obstacles rather than challenges. Narrow view of life

[petra10]

I dont think astrology is paranormal,I think its just good guess work.Whats to study?

[idunno]

I dont think astrology is paranormal,I think its just good guess work.Whats to study?


no its not paranormal,yet Randi told Young that it was.Full stop.:D

[idunno]

where i say «focus on one sign» i meant « focus on one thing»

:D

strange silence:eye-poppi

[Tricky]

no its not paranormal,yet Randi told Young that it was.Full stop.:D
Well if Randi says it is, then if you can demonstrate that it works for the media and for a reliable observer, then you're on your way to a million bucks.

Normally the way this works is for you to develop a number of charts for people about whom you only know their birthdates, times and locations, and see if they can pick out their own. Do you think you can do that? Do you want to try it out with a few people here? I can think of a fairly easy protocol.

[Mojo]

So you're "never stuck for a witty comment, you can liven up the most austere situation with some clever quip. It isn't that you have to think about these things, they just come naturally, off the top of your head, so to speak. Sometimes you surprise even yourself by what comes out of your mouth so spontaneously. You are good fun to be around".

But then, "your nervousness gets in the way of easy self expression and you lack confidence which, in turn, affects your communication skills. Sometimes you will find that it isn't easy to make yourself understood or to express your opinions adequately. You just 'lock up' and feel inhibited."

Riiiight.

[idunno]

Well if Randi says it is, then if you can demonstrate that it works for the media and for a reliable observer, then you're on your way to a million bucks.

Normally the way this works is for you to develop a number of charts for people about whom you only know their birthdates, times and locations, and see if they can pick out their own. Do you think you can do that? Do you want to try it out with a few people here? I can think of a fairly easy protocol.

you obviously didnt watch the youtube links i sent.
they explain the problems with his test and show an alternative test by Young.
its funny that skeptics have been complaining that astrologers criticize their methods but dont show any alternatives,
well, here is one:D

[Tricky]

you obviously didnt watch the youtube links i sent.
they explain the problems with his test and show an alternative test by Young.
its funny that skeptics have been complaining that astrologers criticize their methods but dont show any alternatives,
well, here is one:D
What is wrong with the method I've proposed?

I can tell you that what is wrong with Young's challenge is that it does not, at any point, put astrology to the test. It is a test where Young can say, "I know more about astrology than you". I have no doubt that is true. One can learn practically everything in the literature about dragons, but it doesn't make dragons true.

[Tricky]

Here's the Young Challenge, with my annotations.


Stage 1. You will be asked 10 questions on basic Astrology. A score of at least 8 correct answers is needed before you can move on to the next stage.

As I say, how is this a test of astrology? It is a test of the ability to memorize and nothing more.


Those who cannot achieve this score will be deemed to have failed the challenge. Note; This is a test of existing knowledge.

This is not a test of existing knowledge unless it can be shown to be knowledge. Unsupported claims are not knowledge.


In order to prevent cheating by those who think it is perfect acceptable to get their answers from books or other sources, a time limit on supplying answers is in force.

Again, Young is asking people to memorize data, and do it rather quickly. This is not, in any sense, a test of astrology.

Stage 2. You will be given the birth data of a real person and asked to type out a report giving the main character traits of this person. To do this you need to calculate and draw a chart then interpret it. You must cover general character traits, personality, mentality, and emotional responses. A minimum of 3 pages of A4 is required. Those who cannot do this successfully will be deemed to have failed the challenge.

He is skipping the part where we discover what "successfully" means. Does Young judge? Does the person? How is this person selected?

Stage 3. You will be required to detail the future trends for the same person for the next 12 months. You must include Transits, Progressions, and Directions. Solar return is optional. Those who cannot will be deemed to have failed the challenge.

...and then you wait twelve months to see if they were accurate, right? Again, who judges?

This test requires you do do no more than a traditional Astrologer is asked to do in the normal course of his work.

This is a test to see if a person could be an astrologer, not a test of whether or not astrology works. It is filled with gaps in the protocol, even assuming that protocol was useful.

Now, do you want to discuss what is wrong with the basic idea I've outlined?

[calebprime]

well, here is one:D

idunno, I see you posting many grins, but it seems you are serious. But what say you to Tricky's points? It seems obvious that the Young challenge is a test of knowledge/competency at astrology, not whether it works at all.

Plus, the stuff you posted was the usual untestable vague stuff about learning quickly, having a sense of humor, blah, blah.

Most people will think this applies to them, concentrating on the things they believe match, and downplaying what they think doesn't.

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[Hokulele]

strange silence:eye-poppi


Sorry, stupid ISP dropped me today. Anyway, I see you are using the US Naval ephemeris, european calculations, and tropical coordinates.

Umm, you do realize that the USNO almanacs are published in sidereal coordinates, yes? How would that affect your calculations?

[Tricky]

Sorry, stupid ISP dropped me today. Anyway, I see you are using the US Naval ephemeris, european calculations, and tropical coordinates.

Umm, you do realize that the USNO almanacs are published in sidereal coordinates, yes? How would that affect your calculations?OMG! A woman who understands projections, coordinate systems and geographic transformations... (pant pant pant). This is the kind of woman that I would give my NAD spheroid for. I can't hear things like this from women without wanting to datum.

[Hokulele]

OMG! A woman who understands projections, coordinate systems and geographic transformations... (pant pant pant). This is the kind of woman that I would give my NAD spheroid for. I can't hear things like this from women without wanting to datum.


NAD 27 or NAD 83? ;)

[Tricky]

NAD 27 or NAD 83? ;)
27 of course. None of that crap that hasn't been properly aged. And for the for the digestif, Clarke, 1856.

[Hokulele]

27 of course. None of that crap that hasn't been properly aged. And for the for the digestif, Clarke, 1856.


Ah, yes! That is certainly a wonderful vintage. Could I interest you in some exotics? Old Hawaiian, Alaskan Island, and Guam are available, no conversion to UTM required!

[Tricky]

Ah, yes! That is certainly a wonderful vintage. Could I interest you in some exotics? Old Hawaiian, Alaskan Island, and Guam are available, no conversion to UTM required!
Will you wear your polyconic Madonna outfit?

[Hokulele]

I believe that one was benchmarked. A planar projection just didn't do it justice.

[yairhol]

Guys & Gals....please stop.
This thread is going down hill and it didn't start from a high enough point either.
It's obvious that the OP doesn't have an understanding of what the challenge is all about. He thinks it is a challenge of who knows more about a subject rather than if that subject can withstand the double blind test which is the standard in acquiring scientific knowledge.
Randi has stated a million times before that he doesn't care for explanations, theories or whatever. Just prove that your paranormal claim can stand double blind tests, and the $1M is yours.

Regards,
Yair

[Zep]

Nah, I'm curious to see how these two get it on! It's not like they are in the same time-zone or anything! :D

[CFLarsen]

sorry thats an old one. i studied astrology and i can assure you he follows tradition.he doesnt uses asteroids, nodes and such crap

Why is that "crap"?

i only take criticism from those who studied the subject.
Do not pretend to know the subject cause I would find easily:D

I studied astrology. In fact, I have outdone several professional astrologers.

astrology shows trends. for example i felt an impulse to study(took up 3 courses) earlier this year while Mercury(planet of the mind) was approaching the highest point of the chart. It was not Placebo as I wasnt aware of that.
It tells personality traits as well.
But unlike some claim it doesnt necessarily tell the future. If a certain day is good for love but you stay home, nothing will happen.

How do you distinguish a horoscope from a self-fulfilled prophecy, then?

But dont ask me to read for cause im no expert. James Clayton seems to be good from the free knowledge he provides,. I found him more accurate than the average astrologer:D

If you are no expert, how are you capable of spotting who has studied astrology and who has not?

2 got 3 out of 5 right which is good if you bear in mind only about 5% of astrologers really know their business

How do we know which are among the 5%?

How did you come to that number?

european, tropical

Why are other astrologies wrong?

no its not paranormal,yet Randi told Young that it was.Full stop.:D

Astrology is, by its very definition, paranormal.

[Dr Adequate]

Been there, done that.

Me: I don't believe in astrology.

Woo: Oh, that's just 'cos you're ignorant about astrology.

Me: Name the signs of the Zodiac in the correct order.

Woo: ...

Me: Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces.

Woo: ...

Me: Now, please tell me where I would find the First Point of Aries.

Woo: Er ... Aries?

Me: Oh, you're so naive.

Great fun, but it doesn't prove anything. What we want is proof that astrology works.

[Aepervius]

Been there, done that.

Me: I don't believe in astrology.

Woo: Oh, that's just 'cos you're ignorant about astrology.

Me: Name the signs of the Zodiac in the correct order.

Woo: ...

Me: Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces.

Woo: ...

Me: Now, please tell me where I would find the First Point of Aries.

Woo: Er ... Aries?

Me: Oh, you're so naive.

Great fun, but it doesn't prove anything. What we want is proof that astrology works.



Carefully saved in a skeptic folder under "how to react if somebody tell me that astrology work" :).

[Tricky]

Guys & Gals....please stop.
This thread is going down hill and it didn't start from a high enough point either.
It's obvious that the OP doesn't have an understanding of what the challenge is all about. He thinks it is a challenge of who knows more about a subject rather than if that subject can withstand the double blind test which is the standard in acquiring scientific knowledge.
Randi has stated a million times before that he doesn't care for explanations, theories or whatever. Just prove that your paranormal claim can stand double blind tests, and the $1M is yours.
Oh you're no fun anymore. We're just killing a little time until (if?) IDunno get's back to answer some questions and respond to the posts we've made. Would you prefer kittens?

But Young's Challange is typical of those who like to rail against Randi. It is as if they are saying, "I'm not here to prove anything to you, but suppose I ask you to do something totally unrelated? How would you like that, huh?" Another common thread in their "challenges" is that they are always judged, rather than simply having to do what they say they can do, and they are never independantly judged.

For example, take a look at Victor Zammit's challenge (http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/challenge.html)in which the "claimant" has to prove that there is no afterlife. The judging is done by 'The Committee.'
'The Committee' refers to a group of people expert in afterlife evidence.

[Mojo]

They say [now], as feedlemania deadens their brains, that it doesn't matter HOW Astrology works, only IF it works. Nice try, but it is just another evasion.


As far as determining whether astrology works, it doesn't matter how it works. You tell us what you claim it does, and that can be tested. I regularly use technology while having very little understanding of how it actually works (for example, the technology I'm using to post this). The fact that I don't know much basic electronics doesn't prevent me from telling whether or not my computer is working: I just observe the computer and check whether it is doing what it is supposed to do.

The evasion is yours.

[kieran]

They say [now], as feedlemania deadens their brains, that it doesn't matter HOW Astrology works, only IF it works. Nice try, but it is just another evasion.
How on earth is this just another evasion? This is the crux of the $1m challenge - it is never the "how" that is being tested, just whether or not it works. Demonstrate it works, then we can investigate how ... what's the point of investigating "how" first? Ridiculous!

Care to try my challenge UncleFeedle? Thought not!
So do skeptics have to learn the intricate nuances of all the unfounded claims? After all, why should astrology be a special case. Do we have to learn how to prepare homoeopathic remedies before we can ask if they have any effect at all? Why not just insist that memorizing a telephone directory is a requirement before a claim can be doubted? There seems to be as much point.

[ChristineR]

I freely admit I don't understand much astrology. Please explain to me why a test like this will fail--or if it doesn't fail, explain to me how you feel about an easy one million dollars.

An astrologer is given basic information about ten people, such as date, time and place of birth. The ten people are chosen to have comparable (but not identical) dates, times and places of birth.

(The reason for this is that one can infer a lot from even that minimal information. For example, someone born in Berlin in 1930 is likely to have had certain profound and life changing experiences. Any other information the astrologer might need, such as gender, also should be reflected in constraint of the test subjects, i.e. if the astrologer wants to know gender all subjects are going to be male.)

The astrologer writes ten horoscopes using his knowledge and talents which far surpass my own. The ten people are given the ten horoscopes and asked to pick their own.

If astrology works, the results should be better than chance. Will this test fail? Please explain.

[Reno]

datum....*snigger*

[MortFurd]

I freely admit I don't understand much astrology. Please explain to me why a test like this will fail--or if it doesn't fail, explain to me how you feel about an easy one million dollars.

An astrologer is given basic information about ten people, such as date, time and place of birth. The ten people are chosen to have comparable (but not identical) dates, times and places of birth.

(The reason for this is that one can infer a lot from even that minimal information. For example, someone born in Berlin in 1930 is likely to have had certain profound and life changing experiences. Any other information the astrologer might need, such as gender, also should be reflected in constraint of the test subjects, i.e. if the astrologer wants to know gender all subjects are going to be male.)

The astrologer writes ten horoscopes using his knowledge and talents which far surpass my own. The ten people are given the ten horoscopes and asked to pick their own.

If astrology works, the results should be better than chance. Will this test fail? Please explain.
That's been tried before. Results were what you'd expect from chance.

[Cuddles]

I just observe the computer and check whether it is doing what it is supposed to do.

In my case the answer is usually no. Much like astrology in fact.

[Dan O.]

The astrologer writes ten horoscopes using his knowledge and talents which far surpass my own. The ten people are given the ten horoscopes and asked to pick their own.

How do you control for self bias of the subjects?

[calebprime]

How do you control for self bias of the subjects?

You only need to show an above-chance agreement between what the subjects chose and what subject the astrologer intended.

Just agreement.

As I understand it, nothing above chance has been observed.

[Dan O.]

You only need to show an above-chance agreement between what the subjects chose and what subject the astrologer intended.

Just agreement.

As I understand it, nothing above chance has been observed.

What I'm saying is that in an environment where everyone is casually exposed to the same basic astrological projections, both the subjects and the astrologers would tend to assign the same general traits to a given birth date. I find it astounding that no astrologer has been able to use this to show that astrology "gets it right".

The MDC rules do not allow subjective tests so the subjects will not be allowed to match themselves to the readings. How I believe this has been handled is that the subjects are allowed to fill out a questionnaire and the astrologer then matches the birth dates to the responses. This allows the JREF staff to filter out questions that would correlate with well known astrological projections.

[Rasmus55]

Mockery!! The answer when there is no answer.

Unfortunately im finding out pretty fast scientists care a lot more about their Bank accounts than I thought, so Im not surprised about shams like the Carlson test:)


But of course humanistic, benevolent astrologers are not interested in money or its making. That is why an astrologer refuses to charge a fee for his services.

[Hokulele]

What I'm saying is that in an environment where everyone is casually exposed to the same basic astrological projections, both the subjects and the astrologers would tend to assign the same general traits to a given birth date. I find it astounding that no astrologer has been able to use this to show that astrology "gets it right".

The MDC rules do not allow subjective tests so the subjects will not be allowed to match themselves to the readings. How I believe this has been handled is that the subjects are allowed to fill out a questionnaire and the astrologer then matches the birth dates to the responses. This allows the JREF staff to filter out questions that would correlate with well known astrological projections.


I believe ChristineR covered that possibility when she suggested that the participants have birthdates, times, and places that are fairly well clustered. For example, all participants are Gemini, so that the whole "social butterfly" description applies equally to all. However, their birthdates may be a week or so apart, such that calculated locations of celestial bodies will be different enough to generate differences in the charts. That old Mercury and the Moon can move quite some distance relative to the background sky in just a day or two!

[Invidious]

Oh you're no fun anymore. We're just killing a little time until (if?) IDunno get's back to answer some questions and respond to the posts we've made. Would you prefer kittens?
Please don't kill kittens.

[ChristineR]

That's been tried before. Results were what you'd expect from chance.

Yep, I know. What I don't understand is whether or not astrologers agree that this is a fair test. Clearly some have, but some argue it's not and I couldn't tell you why.

[ChristineR]

What I'm saying is that in an environment where everyone is casually exposed to the same basic astrological projections, both the subjects and the astrologers would tend to assign the same general traits to a given birth date. I find it astounding that no astrologer has been able to use this to show that astrology "gets it right".

The MDC rules do not allow subjective tests so the subjects will not be allowed to match themselves to the readings. How I believe this has been handled is that the subjects are allowed to fill out a questionnaire and the astrologer then matches the birth dates to the responses. This allows the JREF staff to filter out questions that would correlate with well known astrological projections.

Actually I see what you're saying about just giving someone a "classic Gemini" reading. Oddly, I'm not aware of anyone having taken advantage of this. However as Hokule points out I've actually already covered this problem in my broad description and we can simply use all Geminis.

The test itself is not subjective. The participants match themselves to a reading; the number of hits is counted; the number of hits is a number between zero and ten, hits above seven counts as a success. You're actually testing a number between one and ten. The rules do not preclude participants from making subjective judgments in arriving at the score. A psychic might be only 70% sure about his guess of wavy line and might be allowed to arbitrarily skip that card. The only restriction would be practical ones to keep the test from going all night in an attempt to get enough solid guess. Likewise the astrologer can arbitrarily exclude a subject whose chart might be very volatile, so long as he can produce ten usable charts in a reasonable time.

I don't see anything wrong with a questionnaire in theory, but in practice it might be a very long questionnaire. It all really comes down to what the astrologer thinks will work. As I don't understand astrology, I'd like the astrologer to comment on this.

[headscratcher4]

2 got 3 out of 5 right which is good if you bear in mind only about 5% of astrologers really know their business

As many as 5% get it right? Why that's fantastic!

Clearly, it is a "science" you can trust. Just think if only 5% of pilots had it right, or surgeons, or pharmacists, or ... I guess what I'm saying is that it is a pretty useless activity if only 5% of the practitioners/believers know what they're doing.

[Warge]

here is an example.
this is what james says about gemini rising, my rising sign, and what tradition says, though i can see he adds his experience as i had similar experiences.
This is not as vague as « you are normally social, confident, but inside more insecure and sometimes need to be alone».

[snip]



How come about 80-90% fits me, and I'm aquarius? Just curious and if any astrologers could answer I'd be happy to de-bunk it. ;)

[CFLarsen]

and I'm aquarius?

Chances are, no you aren't. (http://skepticreport.com/predictions/astrotime.htm)

[jimbob]

Which system are you using? Aztec? Chinese? Indian? Hawaiian? European? Which ephemeris? What type of calendar, arithmetic or astronomical? Are you using sidereal or tropical coordinates?

Reminds me of a conversation I had in a car with a colleague.

We were listening to BBC Radio4's "Beyond Belief" (Great way of getting a rant started) and some person claimed that "athletes were more likely to be born under the sign of mars".

"Well I'm glad he was using good old western astrology, and none of that oriental claptrap", was my colleague's response.

[Warge]

Chances are, no you aren't. (http://skepticreport.com/predictions/astrotime.htm)

Oh darn - should I give up on the crystals too then? (j/k)

Thank you for the link - I'm going to save it, translate it, print it and hand it out to a few selected people...

[idunno]

How come about 80-90% fits me, and I'm aquarius? Just curious and if any astrologers could answer I'd be happy to de-bunk it. ;)

well aquarians are social but they need a lot of space. they dont like to follow the rules of the tribe

[idunno]

Actually I see what you're saying about just giving someone a "classic Gemini" reading. Oddly, I'm not aware of anyone having taken advantage of this. However as Hokule points out I've actually already covered this problem in my broad description and we can simply use all Geminis.

The test itself is not subjective. The participants match themselves to a reading; the number of hits is counted; the number of hits is a number between zero and ten, hits above seven counts as a success. You're actually testing a number between one and ten. The rules do not preclude participants from making subjective judgments in arriving at the score. A psychic might be only 70% sure about his guess of wavy line and might be allowed to arbitrarily skip that card. The only restriction would be practical ones to keep the test from going all night in an attempt to get enough solid guess. Likewise the astrologer can arbitrarily exclude a subject whose chart might be very volatile, so long as he can produce ten usable charts in a reasonable time.

I don't see anything wrong with a questionnaire in theory, but in practice it might be a very long questionnaire. It all really comes down to what the astrologer thinks will work. As I don't understand astrology, I'd like the astrologer to comment on this.

that was the double blind carlson test which was meant for psychologists not astrologers. No wonder they failed.:p

[idunno]

Hello.

Critics like this one will read into my challenge whatever they like - anything other than take it. This one is trying to imply it is a test of Astrology, yet I clearly state it is a test of a critics knowledge of Astrology and the quality of that knowledge. They like to criticise, but at the end of the day they have no working knowledge of the subject so their protestations are based on hearsay and assumption, the very thing my challenge is designed to expose.

Regards


James Young.
First Stop Astrology.

[idunno]

http://www.firststop-astrology.com/Explorer/Ascending_signs.htm

if you want to really test astrology read this lionk with the ascendant signs description. if you dont know your ascendant give me birth date,time and place of birth or go to www.astro.com (http://www.astro.com) and get yours free.
note that your sun sign, the way you see yourself and what you value may conflict with what your persona or ascendant says.
ill post sun signs description in the next post;)

[idunno]

http://www.firststop-astrology.com/Planet_Sign/sun_sign.htm

http://www.firststop-astrology.com/Planet_House/sun_house.htm

sun signs

and sun in houses

[ChristineR]

that was the double blind carlson test which was meant for psychologists not astrologers. No wonder they failed.:p

Which test? The questionnaire test could be done by a psychologist, but the test I proposed requires an astrologer to draw up a star chart.

You haven't answered my question, which is to explain to me why a person cannot pick his own profile out of a pile of profiles. All that stuff about ascendants and houses sounds pretty cool, but I would like to know what use it has. If you could, say, give me some insight into another person's personality, that would be nice. But I would expect that I could pick my personality profile out of a pile of profiles, or at least narrow it down to a handful of choices.

[milesalpha]

Seems he doesn't much care for the tougher questions. Maybe his chart told him he was outmatched.

[idunno]

Seems he doesn't much care for the tougher questions. Maybe his chart told him he was outmatched.

i have no time now foir so many questions.
the carlson test was a double blind test.
why dont you watch the videos?:mad:

[Warge]

well aquarians are social but they need a lot of space. they dont like to follow the rules of the tribe

Uh, so I'm both social AND reclusive? Actually, let's take an entire paragraph from your post:


You have the gift of humour. Laughter comes naturally and you can see the funny side of any situation, especially if it involves someone else getting into trouble. Never stuck for a witty comment, you can liven up the most austere situation with some clever quip. It isn't that you have to think about these things, they just come naturally, off the top of your head, so to speak. Sometimes you surprise even yourself by what comes out of your mouth so spontaneously. You are good fun to be around.


Yes, I do have the gift of humour and I love a laugh - not on the expense of others though (two out of three just from the first sentence - not bad). I do have gut feeling for witty comments which do live things up and those things come natural. So you see, a tremendous lot of this is me - scary isn't it?

However, this was for gemini and I'm an aquarius - or by judging from the chart provided by CFlarsen, capricorn.

I'm so very confused now...

[Tricky]

i have no time now foir so many questions.
the carlson test was a double blind test.
If you are talking about the test that Young was proposing, it is in no sense a double-blind test.

i why dont you watch the videos?:mad:
Most of your links no longer work. In fact, it looks like the James Young video has been taken down from everywhere it was posted. I wonder why...

[Hokulele]

Hello.

Critics like this one will read into my challenge whatever they like - anything other than take it. This one is trying to imply it is a test of Astrology, yet I clearly state it is a test of a critics knowledge of Astrology and the quality of that knowledge. They like to criticise, but at the end of the day they have no working knowledge of the subject so their protestations are based on hearsay and assumption, the very thing my challenge is designed to expose.

Regards


James Young.
First Stop Astrology.



Why didn't you answer my question regarding which system you use?

[Tirdun]

i have no time now foir so many questions.
the carlson test was a double blind test.
why dont you watch the videos?:mad:

And why won't you understand that Randi's test was valid?

It doesn't matter HOW X works UNTIL X is shown to work.
Replace X with voodoo, astrology, phrenology, or calisthenics. In order for something to be shown to work you have to eliminate subjectivity, chance and fraud.

For example, every dowser believes s/he can find water. Every dowser has a different widget for doing so and Every dowser has a dozen theories as to why and how they supposedly do their water witching. But ultimately it doesn't amount to anything if dowsing doesn't WORK. If Bob knows ten times more about dowsing than Fred it amounts to worthless trivia. Even if Bob has a fancier stick, has a more complicated theory and a bigger water bucket, it's still of no value until Bob proves he can find water.

So we get it. You know astrology. Wonderful! Prove that it works in a scientific way and everyone here will not only have to eat crow, we'll have to sit and listen to you expound endlessly on the inner workings of the astrological machine.

[arthwollipot]

http://www.firststop-astrology.com/Explorer/Ascending_signs.htm

if you want to really test astrology read this lionk with the ascendant signs description. if you dont know your ascendant give me birth date,time and place of birth or go to www.astro.com (http://www.astro.com) and get yours free.
note that your sun sign, the way you see yourself and what you value may conflict with what your persona or ascendant says.
ill post sun signs description in the next post;)

December 12th, 1969. 11:00am. Liverpool hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Go for it. I'll return a blow-by-blow analysis of your analysis.

[CFLarsen]

i have no time now foir so many questions.
the carlson test was a double blind test.
why dont you watch the videos?:mad:

If you have time to find links and post them, and ask us to look at them, then you have time to answer the questions.

If you can demand our time, then we can demand yours.

[The Mad Hatter]

If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody's there to hear it, who gives a ****? The fact that this challenge has gone unanswered doesn't mean everyone's "using every tactic to avoid the challenge"; it's much more probable that nobody cares enough to satisfy the ridiculously unreasonable demands of a person who offers nothing.

The logic here seems to go along the lines of, "I define astrology as walking down a sidewalk. Anyone who disagrees with me doesn't know what astrology is. Now that we have established that astrology is real (as people obviously walk on sidewalks), let me tell you about your future."

It's not up to us to know what one person thinks astrology is. If James Young wants to prove that astrology is anything more than BS, the burden of proof is on him. He needs to make the claim, and he needs to give the proof to back it up.

[Locknar]

So we get it. You know astrology. Wonderful! Prove that it works in a scientific way and everyone here will not only have to eat crow, we'll have to sit and listen to you expound endlessly on the inner workings of the astrological machine.


Very old tactic….pontificate about why you are right, then pull the “I don’t have time right now” disappearing trick.

What idunno/James Young does not get is exactly what you (Tirdun, and others) said...it is not about how much he knows, but can he use that knowledge/ability in a controlled scientific test.

[ChristineR]

I think I'm getting this. Astrology is the scientific study of the stars and other heavenly bodies visible from the earth, from the point of view of persons standing on earth. It has some predictive power in that it predicts the seasonal positions of the constellations, etc. All astrology's conclusions and facts are subsumed by the science of astronomy, which is not hampered by the standing-on-earth point of view.

Astrology is still interesting enough to make a hobby for some people, and it has a certain charm, not unlike the people who weave their own homespun cloth and sew it into civil war uniforms with bone needles. Like antique sewing methods, it also has had an influence in certain historical events, and sometimes an amateur enthusiast may be able to point out details that even a trained historian doesn't see.

However astrology cannot make predictive or meaningful claims about personalities, or future events (other than positions of astronomical bodies and the like).

I could be misunderstanding this, but really this is about what I'm getting out of Mr. Young's posts.

[Locknar]

ChristineR - Umm.....close anyway :)

Astronomy is the scientific study of astronomical objects (ie. using your example, scientifically determining constellation positions).

Astrology places significance, beliefs, or other interpretation to astronomical objects/events and applies them to human affairs.

James Young contention that Astrology is a science is technically correct, as science can be defined as a body of knowledge (American Heritage Dictionary). However, as Astrology does not adhear to the scientific method, pseudoscience is a better definition.

Personally...I do not see why James Young, and other Astrologers, do not take the JREF Challange; what better way to formally establish Astrology as a hard science, then to prove it in a scientific setting....

[Michael C]

http://www.firststop-astrology.com/YouTube/Video1.htm

as youi casn see at the bottom of the link the carlson test is a sham

All I can see from that link is that the page is no longer in use. So maybe you could explain why you think the Carlson test is a sham. Here's a link to a description of that test: http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/AstroSkc.htm

There's an account of it here as well: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/what_do_you_mea.html

To sum up: Shawn Carlson did two tests:

1. 83 People had to try to identify the reading that corresponded to them. Each person was given three readings, and were asked to identify the one that best described them. Only 28 of the 83 people chose the reading that actually corresponded to their birth data, which is exactly what would happen if people just chose a chart at random.

2. 116 people filled out personality questionnaires and the astrologers had to try to match the filled out questionnaires with birth data. For each person, an astrologer was given three personality profiles and had to try to identify which of the profiles corresponded to the person's birth data. Here again, the results were just as if the astrologers had made random guesses.

The tests were well designed, in collaboration with the astrologers. There have been many others since: in a while I'll post some more links.

[Locknar]

The tests were well designed, in collaboration with the astrologers.


Yeah...but the sun was in their eyes, the stars were out of alignment, there was interference from the testers negative energy, or countless other excuses will be trotted out for everyone’s amusement.

[TheAnachronism]

astrology shows trends.

Well, astrology professes to show a whole array of things, which doesn't make it any more meaningful to us, since none of the things that it professes to show can be substantiated.

But you are right, idunno; astrology is made up completely of finding nebulous correlations and trends between any two things. Image for a moment: we gather an amazingly large group of people, find out their birth signs, and calculate the smoking rate for each sign. We find, hypothetically, that Virgos smoke 50% more than any other birth sign. You'd find that meaningful, wouldn't you?

The problem is, if you take another group of exactly the same amount of people and take the exact same steps, you won't get the exact same results. The second time, Aries might smoke 90% more than any other birth sign.

Astrology not only takes none of this into account, it washes itself of responsibility the moment it is proven incorrect.

[Dr Adequate]

i think youll find these interesting

it seems the skeptics are afraid

paulohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwQTS6yuQhU&mode=related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwQTS6yuQhU&mode=related&search=)


This video has been removed by the user.

Hmm ... I wonder who's "afraid" here.

[ChristineR]

ChristineR - Umm.....close anyway :)

Astronomy is the scientific study of astronomical objects (ie. using your example, scientifically determining constellation positions).

Astrology places significance, beliefs, or other interpretation to astronomical objects/events and applies them to human affairs.

James Young contention that Astrology is a science is technically correct, as science can be defined as a body of knowledge (American Heritage Dictionary). However, as Astrology does not adhear to the scientific method, pseudoscience is a better definition.

Personally...I do not see why James Young, and other Astrologers, do not take the JREF Challange; what better way to formally establish Astrology as a hard science, then to prove it in a scientific setting....

True, I have seen many people claim that astrology has interpretations that are relevant to human affairs. But you can look at this two ways. One is just to study the supposed meanings for their historical and literary interest, in much the same way that people study images of the virtues in medieval art. Another is to argue that there is a some sort of actual, objective value to be found in these readings.

James Young has said that the tests we propose are tests of psychology, not astrology. He proposed his own tests of astrology, and it appears to be a test of antique astronomy.

As I said, I don't know much about astrology, but I do know a fair amount about tarot cards.

I could write a test which asked questions like "Why is the hanged man card between strength and death?" and if you couldn't give me a satisfactory answer, I would feel justified in saying you don't know anything about tarots. But I don't claim that tarots actually do anything other than provide artistic and historical interest. They will not win anyone Randi's million.

Strength is the most powerful of the "earthly virtues" in the tarot. Might makes right, and it trumps love, political power, etc. However the traitor can overcome even strength by his dishonorable action. But even he will succumb to death in the end.

So here we have two ways of testing the tarot: one on it's on merits as an antique art form, another as psychology. Both fields of study are can be referred as "tarot card studies', but one is art history, the other is pseudoscience.

So what I'm getting from Mr. Young's comments is that astrology is not a form of insight into human affairs, as he says that tests involving human affairs are psychology tests, not astrology tests.

[Locknar]

ChristineR - The "catch" here is that HE needs to define he wants tested and the testing methods; it is not up to “us” to do anything of that.

Young has suggested folks take his test to prove they have sufficient knowledge in Astrology. As others have pointed out, having knowledge in a subject area does not make it real…there are lots of folks that are experts on the Harry Potter universe, does not mean it exists.

If everyone hands down agreed that Young is the worlds greatest expert on Astrology…that does not make Astrology real.

If Astrology is a true science, I’d think it easy to test….if it is just woo woo, then I’d think it impossible to test as there will always be an excuse as to why the test failed.

[idunno]

ChristineR - The "catch" here is that HE needs to define he wants tested and the testing methods; it is not up to “us” to do anything of that.

Young has suggested folks take his test to prove they have sufficient knowledge in Astrology. As others have pointed out, having knowledge in a subject area does not make it real…there are lots of folks that are experts on the Harry Potter universe, does not mean it exists.

If everyone hands down agreed that Young is the worlds greatest expert on Astrology…that does not make Astrology real.

If Astrology is a true science, I’d think it easy to test….if it is just woo woo, then I’d think it impossible to test as there will always be an excuse as to why the test failed.

i just asked james why he removed the links. im waiting for his reply.

i simply play the role of the journalist. a skeptic with believers and a believer with skeptics:boxedin:

[Locknar]

Hello.

Critics like this one will read into my challenge whatever they like - anything other than take it. This one is trying to imply it is a test of Astrology, yet I clearly state it is a test of a critics knowledge of Astrology and the quality of that knowledge. They like to criticise, but at the end of the day they have no working knowledge of the subject so their protestations are based on hearsay and assumption, the very thing my challenge is designed to expose.

Regards


James Young.
First Stop Astrology.


Given you (idunno) posted this in first person vs stating it was a quote or forward, I assume you and James Young to be one in the same.

If this is true, then your claim "i simply play the role of the journalist. a skeptic with believers and a believer with skeptics" is misleading. As your site First Stop Astrology (http://www.firststop-astrology.com) shows you are clearly a beliver.

[Kell]

idunno: I address this question to James Young. If you aren't James Young, could you pass this on to him? Thanks.

Mr. Young,

It seems your refusal to take the MDC, and the creation of your own test in response are based on your assertion that critics of astrology are not qualified to make such criticisms. Why? Why is it neccessary for people to have a comprehensive knowledge - comprehensive as judged by your subjective standards and of astrology as you personally define it - to be skeptical of it? Is the concept of astrology used by skeptics, such as UncleFeedle and responders in this thread, so different from your own? If so, I fail to see why you should even be using the term "astrology" at all.

A perfectly reasonable definition of astrology is: a system that it is claimed can predict people's personalities and predict the future based on the position of the planets and certain constellations at any given time. I am sure this is the concept of astrology that is being used by your critics. I believe it is reasonable because it is the only one I have ever encountered.

What is your definition of astrology?

Do you claim to be able to accurately predict peoples' personalites using astrology? Do you claim to be able to accurately predict the future using astrology?
If not, what do you claim astrology allows you to do?

Yours Sincerely,

Kell

[Michael C]

Here's another interesting test: http://www.skepsis.nl/astrot.html

It was done in 1994-95. 44 astrologers participated, many of them experienced professionals.

The astrologers were given the birth data of seven test subjects. They were also given copies of questionnaires filled out by these seven people. The questions in the questionnaires (about education, vocation, hobbies, interests, main goals, personality, relationships, health, religion, and dates of important life events) were suggested by the astrologers themselves.

The task of each astrologer was to match the questionnaires to the birth data. The results were just what would be expected if each astrologer had chosen at random.

[idunno]

Given you (idunno) posted this in first person vs stating it was a quote or forward, I assume you and James Young to be one in the same.

If this is true, then your claim "i simply play the role of the journalist. a skeptic with believers and a believer with skeptics" is misleading. As your site First Stop Astrology (http://www.firststop-astrology.com) shows you are clearly a beliver.

no i simply sent his post quickly cause i haD LITTLE TIME.;)

[TTLer]

This is what I "read aloud" whenever I have a newspaper and someone asks me to read their horoscope:

"Certain shortcomings in your upbringing and education cause you to read personal meaning into the movement of stars and planets."

QED

[idunno]

December 12th, 1969. 11:00am. Liverpool hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Go for it. I'll return a blow-by-blow analysis of your analysis.


hi

your ascendant is pisces,sun in sagitarius,two mutable signs

--youre very changeable, moody
pisces is introvert sagitarius the most extrovert of all signs.
since nearly all planets in your chart are in the visible part of the chart youre likely to be more extrovert and turned to the outside world rather than dealing with feelings, emotions, the subjective stuff.
right soo far?;)

[idunno]

hi

your ascendant is pisces,sun in sagitarius,two mutable signs

--youre very changeable, moody
pisces is introvert sagitarius the most extrovert of all signs.
since nearly all planets in your chart are in the visible part of the chart youre likely to be more extrovert and turned to the outside world rather than dealing with feelings, emotions, the subjective stuff.
right soo far?;)

one correction.
with the sun and ascendant ruler in house 8 you have a leaning towards the issues of psychology or life and death and the misteries of sex, all related to house 8. but you remain an extrovert

[idunno]

one correction.
with the sun and ascendant ruler in house 8 you have a leaning towards the issues of psychology or life and death and the misteries of sex, all related to house 8. but you remain an extrovert

and your chinese chart tells me you are ambitious with a love for power,which is confirmed by the western chart, but at least outwardly you are an honest, righteous chap, not the unscrupulous type of ambitious pe:boxedin: rson

[idunno]

and your chinese chart tells me you are ambitious with a love for power,which is confirmed by the western chart, but at least outwardly you are an honest, righteous chap, not the unscrupulous type of ambitious pe:boxedin: rson

By the way was there DST when you were born?

[Warge]

idunno, may I suggest you simply edit your posts instead of adding new ones? Becomes easier to read then.

[Locknar]

no i simply sent his post quickly cause i haD LITTLE TIME.;)


Thanks for clearing that up; a simple "From James Young:" (or something similar along those lines) would help avoid future confusion.

[ChristineR]

idunno, please explain to me why a test like this won't work: Several of us post our birth info, same as arthwollipot. You post notes for each of us, just like you did for him. We all guess which notes are ours. Afterwards you tell us which notes go with which birth date.

We should all be able to pick our own out, right? Within reason, I mean--there may be two or three people on the forum who have similar readings and then they'll be able to say "well I might be A or B but no way am I C."

(If you want to get all picky I someone will say HE'LL JUST SAY WE PICKED RIGHT AND SHUFFLE THE ANSWERS AROUND! but for the sack of a very simple little test like that lets pretend people here are a lot more trusting than they actually are....)

[arthwollipot]

hi

your ascendant is pisces,sun in sagitarius,two mutable signs

--youre very changeable, moody
pisces is introvert sagitarius the most extrovert of all signs.
since nearly all planets in your chart are in the visible part of the chart youre likely to be more extrovert and turned to the outside world rather than dealing with feelings, emotions, the subjective stuff.
right soo far?;)

No. I'm not particularly changeable or moody, and I've never been called an extrovert. I tend to keep my feelings emotions under wraps (I've occasionally been called a little cold), but that doesn't mean that I'm not in touch with them. I've done extensive self-analysis and understand my feelings and emotions quite well.

one correction.
with the sun and ascendant ruler in house 8 you have a leaning towards the issues of psychology or life and death and the misteries of sex, all related to house 8. but you remain an extrovert

No. Psychology holds little interest for me, and I try not to think too much about death. Sex interests me, but you could say that about most people. Again, I am not an extrovert.

and your chinese chart tells me you are ambitious with a love for power,which is confirmed by the western chart, but at least outwardly you are an honest, righteous chap, not the unscrupulous type of ambitious pe:boxedin: rson

No. I am about as far away from ambitious as it is possible to be. I've been in the same kind of job for about fifteen years now, and I have no love or desire for power. Calling me honest and righteous is only a sop and again could be applied to anyone.

By the way was there DST when you were born?

Yes. Are you about to tell me that this reverses everything you just said?

My Myers-Briggs profile is INTP, if you're familiar with that - it's about the most accurate personality profile I've done, though it still has its shortcomings.

Scorecard:

1: Changeable, moody. Wrong.
2: Extroverted. Wrong.
3: Leaning towards psychology. Wrong.
4: Leaning towards issues of life and death. Wrong.
5: Leaning towards sex. Right, but see below.
6: Ambitious with love for power. Wrong.
7: Honest and righteous. Right, but see below.

The two "right" answers above are strongly mitigated by the fact that they are things that almost anyone will agree with. After all, who is going to deny being "honest and righteous"? You could have stumbled on the sex option, if I had sexual hangups. As it turns out I don't, so I will give you half a point for that one, because I don't know what proportion of the public would not say that they are interested in sex. I won't give you anything for calling me "honest and righteous".

Half a point out of seven.

[delphi_ote]

idunno, may I suggest you simply edit your posts instead of adding new ones? Becomes easier to read then.
It's like this thread consists mostly of idunno having a conversation with idunno...

[CFLarsen]

hi

your ascendant is pisces,sun in sagitarius,two mutable signs

--youre very changeable, moody
pisces is introvert sagitarius the most extrovert of all signs.
since nearly all planets in your chart are in the visible part of the chart youre likely to be more extrovert and turned to the outside world rather than dealing with feelings, emotions, the subjective stuff.
right soo far?;)

one correction.
with the sun and ascendant ruler in house 8 you have a leaning towards the issues of psychology or life and death and the misteries of sex, all related to house 8. but you remain an extrovert

and your chinese chart tells me you are ambitious with a love for power,which is confirmed by the western chart, but at least outwardly you are an honest, righteous chap, not the unscrupulous type of ambitious pe:boxedin: rson

By the way was there DST when you were born?

You don't have time to answer questions, yet you have time to cast horoscopes?

[arthwollipot]

Fair go - I responded to a specific request that idunno made - he was obliged to respond.

[CFLarsen]

Fair go - I responded to a specific request that idunno made - he was obliged to respond.

Oh, I'm not saying that he shouldn't respond to you. I'm saying that he shouldn't say he doesn't have time to answer questions, if he has time to cast horoscopes.

Why, that might look as if he tries to evade questions, but jumps at the chance of promoting superstitions.

[Michael C]

idunno, please explain to me why a test like this won't work: Several of us post our birth info, same as arthwollipot. You post notes for each of us, just like you did for him. We all guess which notes are ours. Afterwards you tell us which notes go with which birth date.

We should all be able to pick our own out, right? Within reason, I mean--there may be two or three people on the forum who have similar readings and then they'll be able to say "well I might be A or B but no way am I C."

(If you want to get all picky I someone will say HE'LL JUST SAY WE PICKED RIGHT AND SHUFFLE THE ANSWERS AROUND! but for the sack of a very simple little test like that lets pretend people here are a lot more trusting than they actually are....)

I wouldn't reccommend doing a test like this without proper controls. Cheating is too easy and the tempatation to cheat too important. When similar tests have been done with double-bliding controls, the result has always been the same as if the people had randomdly chosen their horoscopes.

[Locknar]

i simply play the role of the journalist. a skeptic with believers and a believer with skeptics:boxedin:

A follow up comment; if you are REALLY a journalist, then why all the horoscope postings? I contend you are a believer/supporter...which is fine, just be up front about it. To claim neutrality, when you obviously believe, is intellectually dishonest.

So...how would you and Young suggest going about proving Astrology is a science? After all the smoke, that really is the question of the day...not who knows the most, about believing or not believing, etc.

Science can be tested (with proper controls/protocols), repeated, and documented for peer review. While there is LOTS of documentation on Astrology, what is lacking is the "testing" and "repeating" phases - which are critical in science.

Starting with the basic of all questions – what does Astrology do? Once folks can agree on that, testing protocols can be established; lacking this definition/claim, all you and Young are doing is clouding the issue with trivial nonsense (ie. who knows more, horoscopes, etc.)

[negativ]

Is it common for people to know the time of day they were born? :confused:

[idunno]

A follow up comment; if you are REALLY a journalist, then why all the horoscope postings? I contend you are a believer/supporter...which is fine, just be up front about it. To claim neutrality, when you obviously believe, is intellectually dishonest.

So...how would you and Young suggest going about proving Astrology is a science? After all the smoke, that really is the question of the day...not who knows the most, about believing or not believing, etc.

Science can be tested (with proper controls/protocols), repeated, and documented for peer review. While there is LOTS of documentation on Astrology, what is lacking is the "testing" and "repeating" phases - which are critical in science.

Starting with the basic of all questions – what does Astrology do? Once folks can agree on that, testing protocols can be established; lacking this definition/claim, all you and Young are doing is clouding the issue with trivial nonsense (ie. who knows more, horoscopes, etc.)

im not a journalist i simply play a similar role to journalists. gather infiormation without judgement

[idunno]

idunno, please explain to me why a test like this won't work: Several of us post our birth info, same as arthwollipot. You post notes for each of us, just like you did for him. We all guess which notes are ours. Afterwards you tell us which notes go with which birth date.

We should all be able to pick our own out, right? Within reason, I mean--there may be two or three people on the forum who have similar readings and then they'll be able to say "well I might be A or B but no way am I C."

(If you want to get all picky I someone will say HE'LL JUST SAY WE PICKED RIGHT AND SHUFFLE THE ANSWERS AROUND! but for the sack of a very simple little test like that lets pretend people here are a lot more trusting than they actually are....)

i agree, since, unlike Jamie Young im not trying to defend astrology.
he stopped all comunication with me by the way..:D

[Locknar]

im not a journalist i simply play a similar role to journalists. gather infiormation without judgement

This includes doing horoscopes on folks here; that is to say participating in woo woo? I'd have to say, that is an odd implementation of "gather infiormation [sic] without judgement"

[idunno]

This includes doing horoscopes on folks here; that is to say participating in woo woo? I'd have to say, that is an odd implementation of "gather infiormation [sic] without judgement"

it happens that i learned astrology, so, i can test it if you allow it...:D

[idunno]

This includes doing horoscopes on folks here; that is to say participating in woo woo? I'd have to say, that is an odd implementation of "gather infiormation [sic] without judgement"

it happens that i learned astrology, so, i can test it if you allow it...:D

[idunno]

[quote=arthwollipot;2781055]No. I'm not particularly changeable or moody, and I've never been called an extrovert. I tend to keep my feelings emotions under wraps (I've occasionally been called a little cold), but that doesn't mean that I'm not in touch with them. I've done extensive self-analysis and understand my feelings and emotions quite well.



No. Psychology holds little interest for me, and I try not to think too much about death. Sex interests me, but you could say that about most people. Again, I am not an extrovert.




-----In your case the sun is in a positive extrovert sign the ascendant in a negative introvert sign.
what im looking for is people who have both in a negative or both in a positive sign. Since im not a real expert i can only test clear cut charts.
You seem to be more like Pisces. See Pisces ascendant in James Young site in «know;) ledge»

[idunno]

i think i was taken in by james youngs respectable british accent!!!

[Locknar]

it happens that i learned astrology, so, i can test it if you allow it...:D

Ah...is that what you were doing; testing. Umm....testing what? Looking though the thread, i didn't see where you claimed or otherwise defined what you were testing...kind of the first step in the whole "testing" thing.

What is it you claim that Astrology does, what is it you claim to be able to do with it (Astrology)?

[idunno]

Ah...is that what you were doing; testing. Umm....testing what? Looking though the thread, i didn't see where you claimed or otherwise defined what you were testing...kind of the first step in the whole "testing" thing.

What is it you claim that Astrology does, what is it you claim to be able to do with it (Astrology)?

im still testing what it can do:D :boxedin: :boxedin: :eek: :eye-poppi :eye-poppi

[CFLarsen]

idunno,


Why are asteroids and nodes "crap"?


How do you distinguish a horoscope from a self-fulfilled prophecy?


If you are no expert, how are you capable of spotting who has studied astrology and who has not?


How do we know which astrologers are among the 5% that "really know their business"?


How did you come to that number?


Why are astrologies other than "European tropical" wrong?

[Locknar]

im still testing what it can do:D :boxedin: :boxedin: :eek: :eye-poppi :eye-poppi

Without a premise, hypothesis, or otherwise defined goal you can not possibly test anything.

What you are doing is avoiding simple questions, clouding the issue, and otherwise being intellectually dishonest. At least Arthur Chadbourne is funny; you can’t even make that claim.

Being knowledgeable on Astrology, as you claim, you must have some idea or premise as to what it does.

[idunno]

is it possible astrology appear to work because people identify to some extent with the archtypes all signs represent?

in any case i use the gemini ascendant archteypt(journalist) more often than the people i see in forums:)

[idunno]

idunno,

Why are asteroids and nodes "crap"?
How do you distinguish a horoscope from a self-fulfilled prophecy?
If you are no expert, how are you capable of spotting who has studied astrology and who has not?
How do we know which astrologers are among the 5% that "really know their business"?
How did you come to that number?
Why are astrologies other than "European tropical" wrong?

- dont know
- dont know
- im no expertt in the sense that i havent done many professional readings, but when an astrologer reaches similar conclusions as i regarding my own chart take iit he is good
- hard to explain to ignorants of astrology
-its james youngs number and looks almost accurate to me
- they arent. I use Bazi, 9 star ki, Zi Wei...

[idunno]

Without a premise, hypothesis, or otherwise defined goal you can not possibly test anything.

What you are doing is avoiding simple questions, clouding the issue, and otherwise being intellectually dishonest. At least Arthur Chadbourne is funny; you can’t even make that claim.

Being knowledgeable on Astrology, as you claim, you must have some idea or premise as to what it does.

since i learned from books and some contradict each other, i have to find out by myself.
being unregulated, astrology is often victim of charlatans, anyone can claim to be an astrologer, create a fake diploma, you know what...

[Locknar]

since i learned from books and some contradict each other, i have to find out by myself.
being unregulated, astrology is often victim of charlatans, anyone can claim to be an astrologer, create a fake diploma, you know what...

Humm....I would have to say you are 100% right in that, given the lack of definition, anyone can claim to be an astrologer.

I simply do not understand your avoidance, other then to assume it is the typical defense of the woo woo’s.

So to clarify:
- You are "testing" what Astrology does
- You have no idea what Astrology does
- You are gathering information, and unbiased in terms of the validity of Astrology
- You are not James Young (though write first person as if you are, because of time constraints)

[CFLarsen]

- dont know

Yet, you said that asteroids and nodes were "crap".

- dont know

In which case, you cannot claim that astrology works.

- im no expertt in the sense that i havent done many professional readings, but when an astrologer reaches similar conclusions as i regarding my own chart take iit he is good

You can't draw that conclusion. It could also be the case that:

1) Other astrologers are as bad as you.

or

2) The interpretations of the horoscopes are so vague that they will look alike.

- hard to explain to ignorants of astrology

I told you: I am not "ignorant of astrology". You also got some pretty smart and pretty knowledgable people here. I am sure you won't find it hard to explain.

-its james youngs number and looks almost accurate to me

Why does it look "almost accurate" to you? What other numbers do you have, and how did you come by them?

- they arent. I use Bazi, 9 star ki, Zi Wei...

Yet, you said that other astrologies than "European tropical" were "wrong".

[idunno]

Yet, you said that asteroids and nodes were "crap".

--- thats my opinion



In which case, you cannot claim that astrology works.

----i dont make any claims



You can't draw that conclusion. It could also be the case that:

1) Other astrologers are as bad as you.

---maybe

or

2) The interpretations of the horoscopes are so vague that they will look alike.

---not all are vague



I told you: I am not "ignorant of astrology". You also got some pretty smart and pretty knowledgable people here. I am sure you won't find it hard to explain.

---ok



Why does it look "almost accurate" to you? What other numbers do you have, and how did you come by them?

---experience. there are lots of sites where they clçaim to do your chart for a fee but its all done by software



Yet, you said that other astrologies than "European tropical" were "wrong".

----i said i used european tropical not sideral. That has nothing to do with bazi and zi wei, which are chinese which normally agree with each other but show different aspects of peoples life.Zi wei shows travel but bazi doesnt:rolleyes:

[Hokulele]

----i said i used european tropical not sideral. That has nothing to do with bazi and zi wei, which are chinese which normally agree with each other but show different aspects of peoples life.Zi wei shows travel but bazi doesnt:rolleyes:


If you are using tropical coordinates, how do you translate from the USNO sidereal values?

[idunno]

If you are using tropical coordinates, how do you translate from the USNO sidereal values?

i dont translate anything. i either do it with a software or use an Ephemeris book. :eye-poppi

[Hokulele]

i dont translate anything. i either do it with a software or use an Ephemeris book. :eye-poppi


You claimed you were using tropical coordinates to create your charts. Most public ephemerides are published in sidereal coordinates. You would have to translate from one system to another to get an accurate chart, or else there will be errors. I do not know what software program you are using, so I cannot comment on the accuracy. In addition, if you are using software to generate birth charts, how do you know the programmer knew what they were doing? You are simply taking their word that they are using the algorithms they are claiming to use. Unless you can generate a chart manually, you are simply relying on someone else's math, which gets you right back to square one in terms of determining accuracy.

I am going to go out on a limb here and claim that you are not the best person to be judging claims of astrologers, as I am not sure you know enough about the field.

[idunno]

You claimed you were using tropical coordinates to create your charts. Most public ephemerides are published in sidereal coordinates. You would have to translate from one system to another to get an accurate chart, or else there will be errors. I do not know what software program you are using, so I cannot comment on the accuracy. In addition, if you are using software to generate birth charts, how do you know the programmer knew what they were doing? You are simply taking their word that they are using the algorithms they are claiming to use. Unless you can generate a chart manually, you are simply relying on someone else's math, which gets you right back to square one in terms of determining accuracy.

I am going to go out on a limb here and claim that you are not the best person to be judging claims of astrologers, as I am not sure you know enough about the field.

My GOD!!! THERE ARE MANY TROPICAL EPHEMERIDS OUT THERE IN BOOKSHOPS!!!
tHERE ARE MANY SOFTWARES...ASTRO.COM...WOW...YOU CAN GET YOUR CHART FOR FREE IN MANY SITES. HOW COME YOURE SO IGNORANT?

[robinson]

i think youll find these interesting

it seems the skeptics are afraid

paulohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwQTS6yuQhU&mode=related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwQTS6yuQhU&mode=related&search=)



Video has been removed. :(

[Hokulele]

My GOD!!! THERE ARE MANY TROPICAL EPHEMERIDS OUT THERE IN BOOKSHOPS!!!
tHERE ARE MANY SOFTWARES...ASTRO.COM...WOW...YOU CAN GET YOUR CHART FOR FREE IN MANY SITES. HOW COME YOURE SO IGNORANT?


Stop yelling, it doesn't make your point any stronger.

You were the one who claimed to be using the USNO ephemeris, not me. If you cannot tell the difference between a tropical ephemeris and a sidereal, what other parts of astrology might you be missing?

Also, you claimed that only 5% of astrologers knew what they were doing. How do you know what percent of these free sites you mention are accurate? If you cannot create your own charts, how can you criticize others? Isn't this exactly what you were accusing skeptics of doing, judging without expertise?

[idunno]

Stop yelling, it doesn't make your point any stronger.

You were the one who claimed to be using the USNO ephemeris, not me. If you cannot tell the difference between a tropical ephemeris and a sidereal, what other parts of astrology might you be missing?

Also, you claimed that only 5% of astrologers knew what they were doing. How do you know what percent of these free sites you mention are accurate? If you cannot create your own charts, how can you criticize others? Isn't this exactly what you were accusing skeptics of doing, judging without expertise?

my book says it is based on USNO thats all.
i can create my own charts but thats no longer necessary.It hasnt been necessary since around 1990 for chris sake.
Youre bloody nitpicky arent you?
Youre so bogged down that you dont understand what I say.:mad:

[idunno]

Video has been removed. :(

youre a bit late;)

[ChristineR]

I asked you more than once why a simple best match test could not determine whether or not astrology is valid. Yet now you tell us that you don't know enough astrology to determine whether or it is valid. So perhaps the reason all astrologers have failed the tests is because they don't know the difference between a tropical ephemeris and a sidereal. (I haven't a foggy notion myself, for what that's worth.)

Or perhaps it's because the whole thing is bogus. But I'm not clear why I should be listening to you at all now.

[Locknar]

Hokulele - You are wasting your time; I tend to agree with you that idunno is not the expert he claims to be. Not only can't he answer your question, he can't even say what astrology is, or what he is "testing" by doing bogus horoscopes.

ChristineR - Astrology bogus? NO WAY! :)

[Hokulele]

my book says it is based on USNO thats all.


In that case, I would recommend reading up on the various coordinate systems, how the coordinates are determined, and how to translate between them. It really is pretty neat, and not all that hard.

i can create my own charts but thats no longer necessary.It hasnt been necessary since around 1990 for chris sake.


Why is it not necessary?

Youre bloody nitpicky arent you?


Since you were asking for the exact birth time and location, including any shifts for DST, you should understand why nitpicking is important.

Youre so bogged down that you dont understand what I say.:mad:


I do understand, which is why you are getting in trouble here. So to get back a bit to the OP, why do you believe it is important to understand astrology before judging it, and what differentiates a "good" astrologer from a "bad" one?

[idunno]

In that case, I would recommend reading up on the various coordinate systems, how the coordinates are determined, and how to translate between them. It really is pretty neat, and not all that hard.




Why is it not necessary?

--- because of computer softwares. some are accurate




Since you were asking for the exact birth time and location, including any shifts for DST, you should understand why nitpicking is important.
---not all kind of nitpicking




I do understand, which is why you are getting in trouble here. So to get back a bit to the OP, why do you believe it is important to understand astrology before judging it, and what differentiates a "good" astrologer from a "bad" one?

---good astrologer--tells your personality in detail and possibly the kind of situations youll get in.
judging astrology before understanding it is pathetic in my view

[idunno]

I asked you more than once why a simple best match test could not determine whether or not astrology is valid. Yet now you tell us that you don't know enough astrology to determine whether or it is valid. So perhaps the reason all astrologers have failed the tests is because they don't know the difference between a tropical ephemeris and a sidereal. (I haven't a foggy notion myself, for what that's worth.)

Or perhaps it's because the whole thing is bogus. But I'm not clear why I should be listening to you at all now.

i said i dont have much experience with clients not that i dont know enough. im just trying to find out if the so called hidden persuaders apply here:mad:

[idunno]

i tell you how i find astrology appears to work.Its not very scientific but...
One of my friends is very practical but spontaneous, not disciplined.So i thought he might have a strong Aries. Today i pretended to be a female of the class and sent him an email asking his birthdata. He has Aries rising. I have many such cases:)

[Hokulele]

Why is it not necessary?

--- because of computer softwares. some are accurate



How do you know which programs are accurate? Are you going from reviews or recommendations or something? For example, arthwollipot did not feel that the chart you read was very accurate. Could that be a flaw in the software you are using?

And this leads me back to my comment about creating your own charts. Try this experiment. Generate a chart by hand for a birth date, time, and location (make one up if you have to). Generate a chart for the same data using two different computer programs. See how much similarity there is between all three. Now, if there is a discrepancy (and there will be), how do you know which chart is the most accurate?

[idunno]

How do you know which programs are accurate? Are you going from reviews or recommendations or something? For example, arthwollipot did not feel that the chart you read was very accurate. Could that be a flaw in the software you are using?

And this leads me back to my comment about creating your own charts. Try this experiment. Generate a chart by hand for a birth date, time, and location (make one up if you have to). Generate a chart for the same data using two different computer programs. See how much similarity there is between all three. Now, if there is a discrepancy (and there will be), how do you know which chart is the most accurate?

ive done that lots of times years ago. No need any more.Youre drawing peoples attention to irrelevant things again. maybe you are a Virgo:eye-poppi or have virgo rising
astro.com is accurate,Wow is accurate,Astralpursuit.com is accurate.

[Hokulele]

ive done that lots of times years ago. No need any more.


So then how do you determine the accuracy of your computer software? Heck, even with the programs I use to do my taxes, I double check certain answers by hand.

Youre drawing peoples attention to irrelevant things again. maybe you are a Virgo:eye-poppi or have virgo rising


Hoo ha ha ha! You have no idea how far off that is.

[idunno]

So then how do you determine the accuracy of your computer software? Heck, even with the programs I use to do my taxes, I double check certain answers by hand.

--i...used...to...do....that...a...lot. No....need..anymore.
Capice now???????:mad:




Hoo ha ha ha! You have no idea how far off that is.

thats why i said «maybe». I dont know you personally

[Hokulele]

No, I don't understand, that is why I keep asking. How do you know your software is accurate? Are you using the exact same version of software from 1990?

[idunno]

No, I don't understand, that is why I keep asking. How do you know your software is accurate? Are you using the exact same version of software from 1990?

no...and i give up on you:mad:

[Tricky]

In that case, I would recommend reading up on the various coordinate systems, how the coordinates are determined, and how to translate between them. It really is pretty neat, and not all that hard.
For some reason, it is a difficult conceptual leap for many people. We have only a few people in my company who understand geographic coordinates in any depth, and they are widely sought after when any such question comes up because most people think that latitude and longitude are absolute and invariable.

Since you were asking for the exact birth time and location, including any shifts for DST, you should understand why nitpicking is important.
You are correct that Idunno was nitpicking, but I will go out on a limb and say that there shold be no need to nitpick about time or coordinates because they shouldn't be that important. If there is any basis to astrology, then being a few miles off or a few hours off should not make major differences in the personality traits of the person. There should still be enough information to get a pretty good picture of what they are like, even if a little fuzzy when you get down to microscopic detail. After all, the twelve signs are supposed to confer major character traits. Can these be completely overridden by rising signs and such? If so, of what use are the sun signs?

In short, if there is any basis to astrology, a competent astrologer should be able to identify a person's sun sign from their traits at a percentage higher than would be achieved by random chance given a sufficently large sample size. Can you do this, Idunno? It is a fairly easy thing to test.

I do understand, which is why you are getting in trouble here. So to get back a bit to the OP, why do you believe it is important to understand astrology before judging it, and what differentiates a "good" astrologer from a "bad" one?
That's what I want to know too. In my opinion, it should be results-based, not based on the ability to regurgitate astrology text books.

I'd also be willing to bet that a good performance mentalist could beat an astrologer hands down on picking birth dates from random people in a crowd. Those guys know some amazing tricks.

[Hokulele]

i only take criticism from those who studied the subject.
Do not pretend to know the subject cause I would find easily:D


All the way from back on page one. Apparently this isn't true either.

And for any lurkers or other people who may be reading this, anyone who relies on a computer program, or any other tool, without doubling-checking, calibration, and otherwise having some indication that the results are reliable, is asking for trouble in the long run.

[idunno]

For some reason, it is a difficult conceptual leap for many people. We have only a few people in my company who understand geographic coordinates in any depth, and they are widely sought after when any such question comes up because most people think that latitude and longitude are absolute and invariable.

---how do you mean?


You are correct that Idunno was nitpicking, but I will go out on a limb and say that there shold be no need to nitpick about time or coordinates because they shouldn't be that important. If there is any basis to astrology, then being a few miles off or a few hours off should not make major differences in the personality traits of the person. There should still be enough information to get a pretty good picture of what they are like, even if a little fuzzy when you get down to microscopic detail. After all, the twelve signs are supposed to confer major character traits. Can these be completely overridden by rising signs and such? If so, of what use are the sun signs?

In short, if there is any basis to astrology, a competent astrologer should be able to identify a person's sun sign from their traits at a percentage higher than would be achieved by random chance given a sufficently large sample size. Can you do this, Idunno? It is a fairly easy thing to test.

----do you realize how many people are born in the same day.
we need the rising sign to know the person well.


That's what I want to know too. In my opinion, it should be results-based, not based on the ability to regurgitate astrology text books.

I'd also be willing to bet that a good performance mentalist could beat an astrologer hands down on picking birth dates from random people in a crowd. Those guys know some amazing tricks.

ooops

[idunno]

lets get practical.do you want to test?

[Tricky]

lets get practical.do you want to test?
Absolutely. First, we need to agree on a protocol. I'm not going to try to do the whole thing right now, but one of the most important parts is that when you (or whoever is doing the readings) gives the readings that they not contain any sort of reference to atrological terms. The reason for this should be obvious. A person with a modicum of knowledge could guess what sign you were referring to. Readings should containg character traits and character traits only. That is how correctness is judged.

[idunno]

Absolutely. First, we need to agree on a protocol.


ok you make the protocol if you wish:boxedin:

[Hokulele]

Sorry, missed this while I was composing my last post.

For some reason, it is a difficult conceptual leap for many people. We have only a few people in my company who understand geographic coordinates in any depth, and they are widely sought after when any such question comes up because most people think that latitude and longitude are absolute and invariable.


Yes, and that leads to my next point.

You are correct that Idunno was nitpicking, but I will go out on a limb and say that there shold be no need to nitpick about time or coordinates because they shouldn't be that important. If there is any basis to astrology, then being a few miles off or a few hours off should not make major differences in the personality traits of the person. There should still be enough information to get a pretty good picture of what they are like, even if a little fuzzy when you get down to microscopic detail. After all, the twelve signs are supposed to confer major character traits. Can these be completely overridden by rising signs and such? If so, of what use are the sun signs?


I am going to disagree here for a bit. Precision is at least as important celestially as it is terrestially. For example, when doing elevation calculations, how many decimal places do you carry on your convergence factor? Same thing applies to locating celestial objects. Certain objects such as the moon, sun, and even planets such as Mercury and Venus really hustle across the background constellations. There is a new sign rising approximately every two hours. It takes less than a second for a planet such as Mars to switch from retrograde to proper motion.

Mind you, I am not arguing that astrology actually works, but if it did, precision would be important.

In short, if there is any basis to astrology, a competent astrologer should be able to identify a person's sun sign from their traits at a percentage higher than would be achieved by random chance given a sufficently large sample size. Can you do this, Idunno? It is a fairly easy thing to test.


I predict idunno will not accept a test of this nature.

ETA: So far I am being proven wrong, but we will see if he will accept any protocol.


That's what I want to know too. In my opinion, it should be results-based, not based on the ability to regurgitate astrology text books.

I'd also be willing to bet that a good performance mentalist could beat an astrologer hands down on picking birth dates from random people in a crowd. Those guys know some amazing tricks.


Yup.

[idunno]

[,


I predict idunno will not accept a test of this nature.


---really? Then why not test year signs? Now it`s you who sound like a Wow:mad:

[Tricky]

---how do you mean?

I mean that the actual number can be variable depending on the method used to arrive at those numbers.

I can give you an example if you like.

----do you realize how many people are born in the same day.
Yes. Approximately 18 million. (World population divided by 365)

we need the rising sign to know the person well.
It is not important to know them well in order to test astrology. It is only important to know them well enough to place them in the correct sun sign at a rate significantly above random chance (i.e., better than one-in-twelve).

[idunno]

.

I can give you an example if you like.

---sure


Yes. Approximately 18 million. (World population divided by 365)


It is not important to know them well in order to test astrology. It is only important to know them well enough to place them in the correct sun sign at a rate significantly above random chance (i.e., better than one-in-twelve).[/quote]

---ok lets test it

[Hokulele]

I predict idunno will not accept a test of this nature.


I did edit my comment. I had based this prediction off of your responses to ChristineR, who was in the process of developing a protocol. I hadn't seen your response to Tricky when I posted it originally.


---really? Then why not test year signs? Now it`s you who sound like a Wow:mad:


By "year signs", are you now discussing Chinese astrology, or did you mean something else?


And cool! I sound like a "Wow"!

[Tricky]

ok you make the protocol if you wish:boxedin:
Okay, here's the basic outline. It is not the way Randi would test you, but it is more applicable for online things.


We create a questionnaire that asks about basic personality traits. There are a number of these available for various ways of categorizing people, but if you wish to develop your own or with input from us, that would be fine.
We submit the questionnaire to a selected group of members. The primary factor in selection of the people should be that they know little or nothing about astrology. (The reason for this is to avoid confirmation bias. People who know a reasonable amount about astrology will recognize what traits go with what sign.) Another factor should be that the people who fill out the questionnaire should not have their birthday in their "personal profile".
The people answering the questionnaire give their birth date to a third party who will have no contact with you. This third party will put this information into a date-stamped file to be revealed only after the test is complete.
You evaluate the questionnaires and tell send your guess on their sun sign to the third party. We'll need a significant sample, probably a hundred or more, in order to get a statistically valid sample. (Perhaps somebody with a good statistical background could help us out on this.)
After a certain to-be-determined length of time, the submission of questionnaires is cut off and the results are tabulated.
Given the ability for sensory leakage and the probably small sample size, your percentage of correct guesses should be three times higher than random, or 3 out of twelve, equaling 25%.As I say, this is a first pass. I welcome additions and corrections.

[Tricky]

---really? Then why not test year signs? Now it`s you who sound like a Wow:mad:
Based on my personal evaluation of Hokulele, I assure you that she is a Wow.

[Tricky]

I am going to disagree here for a bit. Precision is at least as important celestially as it is terrestially. For example, when doing elevation calculations, how many decimal places do you carry on your convergence factor? Same thing applies to locating celestial objects. Certain objects such as the moon, sun, and even planets such as Mercury and Venus really hustle across the background constellations. There is a new sign rising approximately every two hours. It takes less than a second for a planet such as Mars to switch from retrograde to proper motion.
I would say it would depend on what it is being used for. Since there are only twelve sun signs and each is approximately thirty days in length, the timing accuracy is obviously not that important. Similarly, there are only 12 rising signs, and so as long as you get your location into the right ballpark, you should be able to get a person's personality traits fairly accurately even if you are off by as much as five degrees of latitude or longitude.

Now for launching a space probe or drilling an oil well, the degree of accuracy required is much different.

[Locknar]

lets get practical.do you want to test?


I'm guessing you don't like hard questions like "what do you think astrology does", since you stopped responding to me.

Umm....before you can test, you need to define what you are testing; seems pretty basic to me.

[Hokulele]

I would say it would depend on what it is being used for. Since there are only twelve sun signs and each is approximately thirty days in length, the timing accuracy is obviously not that important. Similarly, there are only 12 rising signs, and so as long as you get your location into the right ballpark, you should be able to get a person's personality traits fairly accurately even if you are off by as much as five degrees of latitude or longitude.

Now for launching a space probe or drilling an oil well, the degree of accuracy required is much different.


This would be true for classical Western sign-based astrology, if all you were interested in are gross personality traits. However, astrologers do not get paid just to tell someone they are an extrovert. ;)

[idunno]

Okay, here's the basic outline. It is not the way Randi would test you, but it is more applicable for online things.


We create a questionnaire that asks about basic personality traits. There are a number of these available for various ways of categorizing people, but if you wish to develop your own or with input from us, that would be fine.
We submit the questionnaire to a selected group of members. The primary factor in selection of the people should be that they know little or nothing about astrology. (The reason for this is to avoid confirmation bias. People who know a reasonable amount about astrology will recognize what traits go with what sign.) Another factor should be that the people who fill out the questionnaire should not have their birthday in their "personal profile".
The people answering the questionnaire give their birth date to a third party who will have no contact with you. This third party will put this information into a date-stamped file to be revealed only after the test is complete.
You evaluate the questionnaires and tell send your guess on their sun sign to the third party. We'll need a significant sample, probably a hundred or more, in order to get a statistically valid sample. (Perhaps somebody with a good statistical background could help us out on this.)
After a certain to-be-determined length of time, the submission of questionnaires is cut off and the results are tabulated.
Given the ability for sensory leakage and the probably small sample size, your percentage of correct guesses should be three times higher than random, or 3 out of twelve, equaling 25%.As I say, this is a first pass. I welcome additions and corrections.

ok but now im off to bed.good nite...:D

[Tricky]

This would be true for classical Western sign-based astrology, if all you were interested in are gross personality traits. However, astrologers do not get paid just to tell someone they are an extrovert. ;)
All we're trying to show here is that it works better than random guessing.

As to my protocol, there is also something to be said for the method of people submitting (through a third party) their birth date/location information and having them pick their own reading out of the group that Idunno evaluates. This doesn't require as large of a sample, but it is a lot more work for Idunno.

[JayT]

i think youll find these interesting

it seems the skeptics are afraid

paulohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwQTS6yuQhU&mode=related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwQTS6yuQhU&mode=related&search=)

Astrologer James Young issues a direct challenge to critics of his videos [such as UncleFeedle and shanedk] to prove they have sufficient knowledge of the subject to be taken seriously. Have they? So far only 2 have applied for the challenge, lovasip backed out, the other failed. And the rest? Every tactic in the book has been used to avoid the challenge. They say [now], as feedlemania deadens their brains, that it doesn't matter HOW Astrology works, only IF it works. Nice try, but it is just another evasion. Care to try my challenge UncleFeedle? Thought not!

Feedle says that no Astrologer has entered his 'debate'. Is it any wonder with such biased minds, and comments from Feedle like 'Astrology is a crock of ****'.

Shanedk had to pay a lawyer to get his libellous videos back on and falsely accuses me of lying - but then most of what he says isn't based on fact. Legal victory does not mean moral victory. (more (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwQTS6yuQhU&mode=related&search=#)) (less (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwQTS6yuQhU&mode=related&search=#))

http://www.firststop-astrology.com/Astrofacts/Fakes.htm

http://www.firststop-astrology.com/Astrofacts/BWC.htm

http://www.firststop-astrology.com/YouTube/Video1.htm

see also his misgivings about randis test in the same link:D



I wish that the government would design an industry standard Astrology Qualifications Examination required to obtain a license to practice astrology.

It would require that whatever they claim to be able to do, MUST be validated by controlled testing procedures, so that the 'products' they sell are proven to meet a certain standard.

The astrology industry would collapse tomorrow if held to ANY standards of proven reliability.

Even barbers require a license based on validated testing of their professional competence. Why shouldn't astrologers?

Astrologers' disclaimers such as, "For Entertainment Purposes Only", are meaningless and invisible to the eyes of believers.

I suggest regulation because the life advice they often give their victims (excuse me - customers, although the distinction escapes me) crosses the line into the proper legal domain of a medical practitioner, psychologist or psychiatrist. People often regulate their entire lives and make critical life decisions according to astrologer advice because they truly believe in it despite any disclaimers. This is too dangerous a level of influence to entrust to anyone who has not proven their consistent professional competence to the public at large.

Anyone whose profession has that kind of influence over people's lives, should be held accountable to professional standards that can be put to the test, just like any other public business that can do harm to its consumers if certain standards are not met.

Even if every church in the world had the disclaimer, "For Entertainment Purposes Only", posted conspicuously on their front doors, could anyone seriously think for one moment that it would deter any true believers?

Imagine that disclaimer posted on the front door of a psychologist's office. Would it effect how much you trusted his or her advice?

Who is protected by such disclaimers? Certainly not the consuming public.

[Complexity]

Little Hitler Dude - Why would anyone with the intelligence of a toenail read or watch anything about astrology?

I haven't spent any time investigating leprechauns either.

Silly twit.

[Tricky]

Little Hitler Dude - Why would anyone with the intelligence of a toenail read or watch anything about astrology?

I'm not who you were talking to, but I'll say for myself that it would be really cool if astrology worked. It would help you understand people and show you insights into yourself. In fact, as a college student I read a lot about astrology and learned about all the basic sun signs and rising signs.* I was more naive than I am now, but I would like to think I had at a minimum, the intelligence of a toenail. Wishful thinking is common even among non-stupid people.

Want to know what made me start doubting?

I haven't spent any time investigating leprechauns either.
Still, a lot of fairly intelligent people play the lottery hoping for that elusive pot of gold.


*ETA: Also, it got me laid once.

[arthwollipot]

-----In your case the sun is in a positive extrovert sign the ascendant in a negative introvert sign.
what im looking for is people who have both in a negative or both in a positive sign. Since im not a real expert i can only test clear cut charts.
You seem to be more like Pisces. See Pisces ascendant in James Young site in «know;) ledge»

Well, for a start the last time I checked I had Capricorn rising, but I may have made a mistake. Admittedly it was a long time ago.

But is that all? Are you now admitting that you are not a very good astrologer because you can't give me an accurate horoscope? Why then should you be considered an authority on astrology at all?

[arthwollipot]

I should issue a correction. When I said "I've never been called an extrovert" I should have added "except by astrologers". It seems to be the one consistent error.

[idunno]

Well, for a start the last time I checked I had Capricorn rising, but I may have made a mistake. Admittedly it was a long time ago.

But is that all? Are you now admitting that you are not a very good astrologer because you can't give me an accurate horoscope? Why then should you be considered an authority on astrology at all?

this is where it gets tricky.According to some astrologers but not all, some ~sagitarians are very extrovert, others the more introvert philosofical type, like winter fire. they can either be physical travellers or mental travellers:cool:

[idunno]

Little Hitler Dude - Why would anyone with the intelligence of a toenail read or watch anything about astrology?

I haven't spent any time investigating leprechauns either.

Silly twit.

ever heard of dark humour?:D

[CFLarsen]

--- thats my opinion

No, no, no. When you point to horoscopes, you point to verifiable evidence. That means your claim can be tested.

----i dont make any claims

Oh, yes you do: When you say that astrology works, that using asteroids and nodes are "crap", and that 5% of astrologers "really know their business", you make claims.

---maybe

Indeed. So, why choose the paranormal explanation, when you have a natural one?

---not all are vague

Name one, and give examples of precise horoscopes cast by this astrologer.

---ok

So, go ahead: Please explain how we know which astrologers are among the 5% that "really know their business".

---experience. there are lots of sites where they clçaim to do your chart for a fee but its all done by software

None of which is verifiable. That won't cut it.

----i said i used european tropical not sideral. That has nothing to do with bazi and zi wei, which are chinese which normally agree with each other but show different aspects of peoples life.Zi wei shows travel but bazi doesnt:rolleyes:

You said that only European Tropical astrology was right - all others were wrong.

[Michael C]

What many people don't realise is that astrology has been seriously tested, not just by those nasty skeptical scientists, but also by astrologers. Hundreds of tests have been done.

The best source that I have found for serious information about astrology is http://www.astrology-and-science.com/. This site was created by Rudolf Smit, who used to be a successful professional astrologer. It's not a particularly slick or pretty site, just a mine of information. You could start by reading the "Grand summary of entire website (http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/u-gran2.htm)", from which I quote:

"The findings have been clear and consistent whether obtained by astrologers or by scientists -- astrology has not contributed to human knowledge, it has failed hundreds of tests, it has no acceptable mechanism other than hidden persuaders, and users do not usefully agree on basics such as which zodiac to use or even on what a given birth chart indicates. Today, for the first time in twenty centuries, we can say with some certainty that no, the heavens do not reflect our destiny."

This site is the nearest thing I have found to an impartial view of astrology. The authors have studied the subject seriously - many of them are, or were astrologers themselves - and arguments both for and against astrology are presented.

Anyone thinking of creating a test of astrology would do well to peruse this site first.

[idunno]

What many people don't realise is that astrology has been seriously tested, not just by those nasty skeptical scientists, but also by astrologers. Hundreds of tests have been done.

The best source that I have found for serious information about astrology is http://www.astrology-and-science.com/. This site was created by Rudolf Smit, who used to be a successful professional astrologer. It's not a particularly slick or pretty site, just a mine of information. You could start by reading the "Grand summary of entire website (http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/u-gran2.htm)", from which I quote:

"The findings have been clear and consistent whether obtained by astrologers or by scientists -- astrology has not contributed to human knowledge, it has failed hundreds of tests, it has no acceptable mechanism other than hidden persuaders, and users do not usefully agree on basics such as which zodiac to use or even on what a given birth chart indicates. Today, for the first time in twenty centuries, we can say with some certainty that no, the heavens do not reflect our destiny."

This site is the nearest thing I have found to an impartial view of astrology. The authors have studied the subject seriously - many of them are, or were astrologers themselves - and arguments both for and against astrology are presented.

Anyone thinking of creating a test of astrology would do well to peruse this site first.

It was after reading that site in 2001 that i began to have migivings regarding astrology.
Still some of the tests appear a bit silly. Testing extrobert-introvert via sun signs, or professions, testing psychological astrlogy which is a 20th century invention to make astrology look more acceptable.
I contact Rudolf regularly and he sent me one of the tests to be posted to astrologers in a forum. of the 5 matches 2 astrologers got 3 right which is good. It means they only failed one.
at the start of 20th century dutch astrologer leo Knegt got not only 5 but all 10 right. Unfortunately we dont know much abouit him so the test has been repeated in the off chance that someone will get at least 5 hits. But so far only 3. I can post that test if you want.:boxedin:

Furthermore i think chinese systems are easier to test, as they dont look so vague but we need some meta analysis

[idunno]

Originally Posted by idunno http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2783119#post2783119)
----i said i used european tropical not sideral. That has nothing to do with bazi and zi wei, which are chinese which normally agree with each other but show different aspects of peoples life.Zi wei shows travel but bazi doesnt:rolleyes:

You said that only European Tropical astrology was right - all others were wrong.

--men you need glasses or are a half wit. the answer is above your comment
when i ruled germany guys like you would be packed to Auschwitz and gassed with bull`s farts while believers followed with me.
good old days

[Hellkat9940]

Originally Posted by idunno
--men you need glasses or are a half wit. the answer is above your comment
when i ruled germany guys like you would be packed to Auschwitz and gassed with bull`s farts while believers followed with me.
good old days



Astrologer Hitler? Has the JREF forum become a haven for rejected comic book villains?

[idunno]

Astrologer Hitler? Has the JREF forum become a haven for rejected comic book villains?


im no longer Hitler
Now i am ME at age 6:p

[Locknar]

---good astrologer--tells your personality in detail and possibly the kind of situations youll get in.

So is this what you are claiming wrt what astrology does? Or still to tough a question to answer?

[idunno]

So is this what you are claiming wrt what astrology does? Or still to tough a question to answer?


yep. did you expect more?:D

[Locknar]

yep. did you expect more?:D

Nope...that works for me.

So....the next questions would be, define "detail"....and how would you suggest testing as far as test set up, protocol, and what you would need, and what would be the criteria for "sucess"?

[Tricky]

this is where it gets tricky.According to some astrologers but not all, some ~sagitarians are very extrovert, others the more introvert philosofical type, like winter fire. they can either be physical travellers or mental travellers:cool:
Which astrologers are right? How do you determine which ones are right? How can this be tested?

[idunno]

Nope...that works for me.

So....the next questions would be, define "detail"....and how would you suggest testing as far as test set up, protocol, and what you would need, and what would be the criteria for "sucess"?

The opposite of vague. how do you define vague?:boxedin:

[idunno]

Which astrologers are right? How do you determine which ones are right? How can this be tested?

Hmmm!! By testing...:cool:

[Locknar]

The opposite of vague. how do you define vague?:boxedin:

I'm not the one making the claim. You claim that astrology "tells your personality in detail", so I am asking you to define what that means.

What would you suggest as a test, what would be the evaluation criteria to determine "sucess"?

[idunno]

I'm not the one making the claim. You claim that astrology "tells your personality in detail", so I am asking you to define what that means.

What would you suggest as a test, what would be the evaluation criteria to determine "sucess"?

next time youll be asking to define «defining personality in detailed details»:D

[Locknar]

next time youll be asking to define «defining personality in detailed details»:D

Why the avoidance? It is your claim, I am simply asking you to define/elaborate on it.

It would be like me saying I can recite Pi in perfect detail; "3" - hardly a "detailed" reciting by most peoples definition.

[idunno]

Why the avoidance? It is your claim, I am simply asking you to define/elaborate on it.

It would be like me saying I can recite Pi in perfect detail; "3" - hardly a "detailed" reciting by most peoples definition.

detailed:
-you are organized
- extrovert
-spontaneous
-formal
-shy
-versatile
-moody

or...your sun in capricorn makes you want to be taken seriously but your gemini joker persona makes people think they shoulnt listen to you which annoys you deeply

need i say more?:mad:

[Locknar]

detailed:
-you are organized
- extrovert
-spontaneous
-formal
-shy
-versatile
-moody

or...your sun in capricorn makes you want to be taken seriously but your gemini joker persona makes people think they shoulnt listen to you which annoys you deeply

need i say more?:mad:

Humm….those are examples, not a definition. Let’s table that for now….

How about we define “personality”; can we agree on the definition that “personality” is the totality of qualities and traits, as of character or behavior, that are peculiar to a specific person? (as taken from the American Heritage Dictionary, 2006)

If we can agree on that, then “detailed” would imply enough information wrt a specific person in terms of traits, character or behavior. Yes? No?

[idunno]

Humm….those are examples, not a definition. Let’s table that for now….

How about we define “personality”; can we agree on the definition that “personality” is the totality of qualities and traits, as of character or behavior, that are peculiar to a specific person? (as taken from the American Heritage Dictionary, 2006)

If we can agree on that, then “detailed” would imply enough information wrt a specific person in terms of traits, character or behavior. Yes? No?

i suppose so:boxedin:

[Bob2038]

detailed:
-you are organized
- extrovert
-spontaneous
-formal
-shy
-versatile
-moody

or...your sun in capricorn makes you want to be taken seriously but your gemini joker persona makes people think they shoulnt listen to you which annoys you deeply

need i say more?:mad:


What is a shy extrovert like? :confused:

[Locknar]

i suppose so:boxedin:

A simple yes or no if you please; you agree to the definitions as presented?

[idunno]

A simple yes or no if you please; you agree to the definitions as presented?

YES:jaw-dropp :eye-poppi :eye-poppi :eye-poppi :eye-poppi :eye-poppi :eye-poppi :eye-poppi :eye-poppi :eye-poppi :eye-poppi

[Locknar]

YES:jaw-dropp :eye-poppi :eye-poppi :eye-poppi :eye-poppi :eye-poppi :eye-poppi :eye-poppi :eye-poppi :eye-poppi :eye-poppi

Well...how would you suggest testing your claim (given the agreed upon deifiitoins)? What would determin sucess/failure?

It's your claim, and you said you wanted to do a test...so you really need to start the process and provide some concept/ideas.

[Tricky]

What is a shy extrovert like? :confused:
He hires somebody to be gregarious for him.

[idunno]

He hires somebody to be gregarious for him.

or talks to the mirror:D

[ChristineR]

A shy extrovert would be somebody who seeks out the company of others and defines himself by his relationships with others, yet feels embarrassed and uncomfortable doing so.

It would be like being devoted to a hobby you don't enjoy, but at least it would be possible. It also shows you why you can't give someone a horoscope and ask them how accurate it is. It's too subjective. I can't think of any way of testing astrology that doesn't involve comparing one group of horoscopes to some sort of know data. The two cases we suggested are personality tests or questionnaires and simply asking people which horoscopes they like.

[idunno]

A shy extrovert would be somebody who seeks out the company of others and defines himself by his relationships with others, yet feels embarrassed and uncomfortable doing so.

It would be like being devoted to a hobby you don't enjoy, but at least it would be possible. It also shows you why you can't give someone a horoscope and ask them how accurate it is. It's too subjective. I can't think of any way of testing astrology that doesn't involve comparing one group of horoscopes to some sort of know data. The two cases we suggested are personality tests or questionnaires and simply asking people which horoscopes they like.

well tell us what test you want.
note that astrology doesnt tell the future, it shows trends, like, one day youre likely to be angry, so, youll be more prone to accidents:D

[Locknar]

well tell us what test you want.
note that astrology doesnt tell the future, it shows trends, like, one day youre likely to be angry, so, youll be more prone to accidents:D

Another avoidence.... It's your claim, you suggest a test and sucess/failure criteria.

Also, we had agreed on what astrology does...."trends" was never mentiond

[Michael C]

A shy extrovert would be somebody who seeks out the company of others and defines himself by his relationships with others, yet feels embarrassed and uncomfortable doing so.

It would be like being devoted to a hobby you don't enjoy, but at least it would be possible. It also shows you why you can't give someone a horoscope and ask them how accurate it is. It's too subjective. I can't think of any way of testing astrology that doesn't involve comparing one group of horoscopes to some sort of know data. The two cases we suggested are personality tests or questionnaires and simply asking people which horoscopes they like.

No, just giving someone a horoscope and asking them to rate its accuracy is not a good test. The Forer effect comes into play here, meaning that people will tend to rate the horoscope as good description of them, even if it is in fact the horoscope of someone else (a mass murderer for instance, as in the test done by Michel Gauquelin that is described about half-way down this page (http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/d-effe2.htm)).

But good tests are possible and have already been done. What is needed is a situation where each person has to choose the horoscope that fits them best out of a certain number of different ones. This is how one of the Carlson tests was organised: each subject received three horoscopes, one of which corresponded to their birth data. Each subject had a 1 in 3 chance of choosing their own horoscope. Of 83 people, 28 chose the horoscope that corresponded to their own birth data: exactly what would happen if the people had chosen at random.

[Locknar]

MichaelC - It will be interesting to see what idunno suggests test wise; its his claim, he needs to come up with a testing process.

That said, something like the Carlson test you mention would be easy enough to do on line I'd think.

[ChristineR]

well tell us what test you want.
note that astrology doesnt tell the future, it shows trends, like, one day youre likely to be angry, so, youll be more prone to accidents:D

Well, a couple of tests have been suggested here so far. The astrologer should select the tests though, because he has the best knowledge and can maximize success.

For example, would a test that describes what kind of day I had yesterday be more reliable than a test that describes what kind of person I am? The test should look at whichever is the most reliable.

[Michael C]

In order to do a test like that on line, we need a person who is accepted as arbitrator, who centralises data and only passes on anonymous birth data to the astrologer and anonymous horoscopes to the test subjects (similar to Tricky's proposition higher up in this thread). Both the astrologer and the test subjects would have to trust this person not to help one side or the other. How do we organise that?

[Hellbound]

Here's an idea:

3 people provide their birthdates/times/whatever data is needed for a chart. This should be provided in the thread.

idunno can then cast these dates and make the three horoscopes. DO not post them here, however. Instead, we should have a third party identified as the "escrow holder". The three horoscopes are sent to him, labelled with the names of who they belong to. He, in turn, will remove the names (relabelling them A,B,C) and send the three out to each of the three birthday providers. Each provider will review the three, and send the escrow holder the letter for the one they feel matches them most closely. The escrow holder can then post the results.

Of course, three people is not really a significant sample size, but it's a start on a baseline for the protocol, in an online form.

ETA: Actually, MichaelC's idea of keeping even the birthdates anonymous is a good one. Otherwise, there's an oppurtunity for research into the poster to make a horoscope more accurate. HAve to rule out all possibilities for error or deciet.

[idunno]

No, just giving someone a horoscope and asking them to rate its accuracy is not a good test. The Forer effect comes into play here, meaning that people will tend to rate the horoscope as good description of them, even if it is in fact the horoscope of someone else (a mass murderer for instance, as in the test done by Michel Gauquelin that is described about half-way down this page (http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/d-effe2.htm)).

But good tests are possible and have already been done. What is needed is a situation where each person has to choose the horoscope that fits them best out of a certain number of different ones. This is how one of the Carlson tests was organised: each subject received three horoscopes, one of which corresponded to their birth data. Each subject had a 1 in 3 chance of choosing their own horoscope. Of 83 people, 28 chose the horoscope that corresponded to their own birth data: exactly what would happen if the people had chosen at random.

oh im aware of forer effect, thats why i dont trust the judgement of believers. i agree with huntsman and Christine.Lets get on with it:boxedin:

[ChristineR]

I have to run, but if nobody else volunteers I will be either arbitrator or one of the test subjects. I'll also calculate the odds for getting 3 of 3 (or whatever we end up with) by chance.

I'll be back in around five hours.

[idunno]

I have to run, but if nobody else volunteers I will be either arbitrator or one of the test subjects. I'll also calculate the odds for getting 3 of 3 (or whatever we end up with) by chance.

I'll be back in around five hours.

and me in 2 hours:)

[sinnikal]

Sorry, it might not be quite the form but.......................
I call Troll.
Someone's got to.
Evasion, obfuscation.......all the signs are there.

[Michael C]

Here's an idea:

3 people provide their birthdates/times/whatever data is needed for a chart. This should be provided in the thread.

idunno can then cast these dates and make the three horoscopes. DO not post them here, however. Instead, we should have a third party identified as the "escrow holder". The three horoscopes are sent to him, labelled with the names of who they belong to. He, in turn, will remove the names (relabelling them A,B,C) and send the three out to each of the three birthday providers. Each provider will review the three, and send the escrow holder the letter for the one they feel matches them most closely. The escrow holder can then post the results.

Of course, three people is not really a significant sample size, but it's a start on a baseline for the protocol, in an online form.

ETA: Actually, MichaelC's idea of keeping even the birthdates anonymous is a good one. Otherwise, there's an oppurtunity for research into the poster to make a horoscope more accurate. HAve to rule out all possibilities for error or deciet.

The birthdates must be anonymous. It won't do if idunno knows which posters are participating, nor if the subjects themselves know who the other subjects are. A possibility would be to use spouses, family members or friends as test subjects. Three posters could agree to give the birth data of someone they know well, who accepts to participate in the test. We would know who the three posters are, but we wouldn't know who they had chosen. Each of the three posters would send the birth data of the person they had chosen to the escrow holder, who would communicate this data, labelled only A,B,C to idunno.

[drkitten]

Each of the three posters would send the birth data of the person they had chosen to the escrow holder, who would communicate this data, labelled only A,B,C to idunno.

I will happily volunteer to be the escrow holder. I would also suggest that all "escrowed" communication happen via forum PM, since that way (if necessary) one of the admins like
Darat can confirm the validity of the contents.

[Locknar]

Well, a couple of tests have been suggested here so far. The astrologer should select the tests though, because he has the best knowledge and can maximize success.


Exactly. I think we are putting the cart before the horse here....idunno needs to take the lead and define a test, not folks here.

Comments like "seems ok to me" and "lets get on with it" are simply to vague.

Idunno - if you want to do a test, speak up and tell us what you'd like to do, vs just give a vague "seems ok to me". If you are going to continue to be vague, or avoid questions because of time constraints you might have that is fine....just speak up and we can find someone else.

[idunno]

Exactly. I think we are putting the cart before the horse here....idunno needs to take the lead and define a test, not folks here.

Comments like "seems ok to me" and "lets get on with it" are simply to vague.

Idunno - if you want to do a test, speak up and tell us what you'd like to do, vs just give a vague "seems ok to me". If you are going to continue to be vague, or avoid questions because of time constraints you might have that is fine....just speak up and we can find someone else.

I suggest Huntsman test with the corrections mentioned by Michael:cool:

[Tricky]

Here's an idea:

3 people provide their birthdates/times/whatever data is needed for a chart. This should be provided in the thread.

idunno can then cast these dates and make the three horoscopes. DO not post them here, however. Instead, we should have a third party identified as the "escrow holder". The three horoscopes are sent to him, labelled with the names of who they belong to. He, in turn, will remove the names (relabelling them A,B,C) and send the three out to each of the three birthday providers. Each provider will review the three, and send the escrow holder the letter for the one they feel matches them most closely. The escrow holder can then post the results.

Of course, three people is not really a significant sample size, but it's a start on a baseline for the protocol, in an online form.

ETA: Actually, MichaelC's idea of keeping even the birthdates anonymous is a good one. Otherwise, there's an oppurtunity for research into the poster to make a horoscope more accurate. HAve to rule out all possibilities for error or deciet.
The holder also needs to scan the readings to remove any references to planetary positions or anything else that might give information as to which date the reading is for. The final horoscopes should contain only character traits. Even predicitions and/or postdictions could give hints as to the age of the person it is for.

[ChristineR]

What sort of data do you need? Birth date, time, and location?

Most predictions and postdictions can be handled by rewording comments to say things like "you have or will have lots of children." The only question is whether some comments like that would be too contrived to be applied to anyone.

[Hokulele]

I am clearly an inappropriate candidate for either a test subject or escrow holder, but would be willing to assist in any way. As a skeptic who knows a bit about astrology and can generate charts in a variety of methods, there may be ways I can help avoid any unintentional cheating. For example, I can proof-read the horoscopes to see if any "hints" as to birthdate are left in. In this case, I would notify the escrow-holder who could then ask idunno to review and revise if necessary.

Idunno, please understand I am not accusing you of cheating, merely wanting to make sure that no accusations can be leveled at you after the fact. If you have any suggestions, or if you would prefer that I am completely uninvolved, I can respect that.

[idunno]

[quote=ChristineR;2786918]What sort of data do you need? Birth date, time, and location?


exactly:)

[idunno]

please hurry up cause ill be busy learning guitar tunes this weekend before going on holiday monday:)

[idunno]

http://www.firststop-astrology.com/Planet_Sign/sun_sign.htm

do you find this sun sign descriptions vague?
note that you may not have all the traits of your sun sign but aspire or value them. :)

if your sun and ascendant are similar, like being of the same sign or same element, you should easily identify with them. That would be evidence.
In the case of our Australian friend i could always claim he is after all introvert because of pisces rising and you could claim that with so many influences any chart will do.
But when the main signs are similar theres no room for vagueness.
check if your sun and ascendants are of same element

earth- taurus,virgio,capricorn
fire- aries, leo,sagitarius,
water- cancer,scorpio,pisces
air-gemini, libra,aquarius

the exception is when there is a completely different planet conjunct the sun or ascendant, like sun conjunct saturn in aries or saturn in gemini ascendant

[Yubi]

Oh my! I'm sorry if I interrupt your testing or so but WOW! These descriptions are really AMAZINGLY vague. I knew astrology was bad in that respect but WOW! Is it really possible to get ANY idea of what suits best with so much general data in all different signs? Ah well, get on with the usual program...

I'm just stunned...:eye-poppi

[idunno]

I should issue a correction. When I said "I've never been called an extrovert" I should have added "except by astrologers". It seems to be the one consistent error.

arthwollipot

i always foundTeri King´s description of sun-ascendant combo accurate at least in my family.
See if this is more accurate but note that it comes from a book, it may not all be true especially destiny, like the death of siblings

«ambitious, but tends to complicate things through indecison in professional matters,you need to be recognized and success, people are attracted to yor courteous and amiable manner.
fertile and intense imagination,that needs expression, but can deteorate in exageration and sensationaism.
you care a lot about the less fortunate and support them whenever possible..
restless,active and nervous, need to find time to relax.
susceptible , you are worried by strange fancies and ideas.As a result youre difficult to know.
benevolent and fair,meditative and poetic.
you may have many siblings and parents can be very helpful.

you may lose a sibling prematurely.
your father may have died prematurely.


negative- indecision, afraid of making mistakes,uo expect others to motivate yoi.
:cool:

[idunno]

Oh my! I'm sorry if I interrupt your testing or so but WOW! These descriptions are really AMAZINGLY vague. I knew astrology was bad in that respect but WOW! Is it really possible to get ANY idea of what suits best with so much general data in all different signs? Ah well, get on with the usual program...

I'm just stunned...:eye-poppi

mate, look for example at Aries and capricorn. Theyre completely different. Why vague?:)

[arthwollipot]

this is where it gets tricky.According to some astrologers but not all, some ~sagitarians are very extrovert, others the more introvert philosofical type, like winter fire. they can either be physical travellers or mental travellers:cool:

So astrologers can't agree with one another? One astrologer can say one thing and another can say another thing, and they are both right?

[arthwollipot]

Sorry, it might not be quite the form but.......................
I call Troll.
Someone's got to.
Evasion, obfuscation.......all the signs are there.

No. Not troll. Idunno has stuck around for discussion. That's not troll behaviour.

[arthwollipot]

For example, would a test that describes what kind of day I had yesterday be more reliable than a test that describes what kind of person I am? The test should look at whichever is the most reliable.

Yes - I agree. Astrologers are always telling us what kind of day we'll have tomorow - surely a prediction can be anonymously sent to an arbitrator and only looked at by the subject after the day in question has passed?

Or am I unfairly concentrating on newspaper astrologers?

[idunno]

So astrologers can't agree with one another? One astrologer can say one thing and another can say another thing, and they are both right?

well i met a lot of people this year and what im quicklly realising is that the rising sign is very important in determining extroversion. with pisces rising youre more likelçy to be a bit mute, and have a strong need to hide in your cave and use your imagination,dream...:cool:

[arthwollipot]

«ambitious, but tends to complicate things through indecison in professional matters,you need to be recognized and success, people are attracted to yor courteous and amiable manner.

Wrong. I seem just not to be ambitious. I do not aspire to higher position. This is causing a problem in that I can't afford to live in the style to which I would like to become accustomed.

fertile and intense imagination,that needs expression, but can deteorate in exageration and sensationaism.

Fertile and intense imagination, right. I'll give you that. Exaggeration and sensationalism, I'm not sure. I'll say wrong.

you care a lot about the less fortunate and support them whenever possible..

Wrong. While I care about them, I care more about myself, and I can't afford to support anyone else..

restless,active and nervous, need to find time to relax.

Wrong. I'm about the most laid back person I know. If I were any more laid back I'd be upside-down.

susceptible , you are worried by strange fancies and ideas.As a result youre difficult to know.

Wrong. Why do you think I post on a skeptic's forum?

benevolent and fair,meditative and poetic.

I won't give you "benevolent and fair" because that could describe anyone, and no-one will be willing to admit that they're malevolent and unfair. Meditative and poetic? Well, I think a lot - does that count? Wrong.

you may have many siblings and parents can be very helpful.

Wrong on the siblings, right on the parents. They want to give me 50 grand soon, and that will be VERY helpful.

you may lose a sibling prematurely.

Wrong. My only brother is still alive and kicking.

your father may have died prematurely.

Wrong. He's still alive and kicking too.

negative- indecision, afraid of making mistakes,uo expect others to motivate yoi.
:cool:

Right. That describes me perfectly. Well done.

Out of 12 direct statements, you (or rather your book) got 3 right. That was a bit better than your original attempt.

[Yubi]

mate, look for example at Aries and capricorn. Theyre completely different. Why vague?:)

As in that most everyone could find quite enough that fits them in any of the horoscopes. That the one that fits the best would happen to be the "right" one, would be completely by chance.

I do admit though that for example Aries and Capricorn is quite different from one another. In my case Aries is the one that fits the least of all (I really have to stretch it to get anything right there), and it probably differs between people which one has the best or worst fit . But that is still quite uninteresting unless there is a high probability that the one that fits the best is actually the one it should be.

[idunno]

Wrong. I seem just not to be ambitious. I do not aspire to higher position. This is causing a problem in that I can't afford to live in the style to which I would like to become accustomed.



Fertile and intense imagination, right. I'll give you that. Exaggeration and sensationalism, I'm not sure. I'll say wrong.



Wrong. While I care about them, I care more about myself, and I can't afford to support anyone else..



Wrong. I'm about the most laid back person I know. If I were any more laid back I'd be upside-down.



Wrong. Why do you think I post on a skeptic's forum?



I won't give you "benevolent and fair" because that could describe anyone, and no-one will be willing to admit that they're malevolent and unfair. Meditative and poetic? Well, I think a lot - does that count? Wrong.



Wrong on the siblings, right on the parents. They want to give me 50 grand soon, and that will be VERY helpful.



Wrong. My only brother is still alive and kicking.



Wrong. He's still alive and kicking too.



Right. That describes me perfectly. Well done.

Out of 12 direct statements, you (or rather your book) got 3 right. That was a bit better than your original attempt.


thanks.
as for the «laid back», I should have known.Youre an Aussie, and we must bear in mind the influence of our surrondings.
The death predictions as i expected cannot be applied to all sagitarius-pisces rising.:)

[idunno]

As in that most everyone could find quite enough that fits them in any of the horoscopes. That the one that fits the best would happen to be the "right" one, would be completely by chance.

I do admit though that for example Aries and Capricorn is quite different from one another. In my case Aries is the one that fits the least of all (I really have to stretch it to get anything right there), and it probably differs between people which one has the best or worst fit . But that is still quite uninteresting unless there is a high probability that the one that fits the best is actually the one it should be.


i think the same goes for psychology types.
We have a bit of all though one predominates:)

[Yubi]

i think the same goes for psychology types.
We have a bit of all though one predominates:)

Yes, but astrology goes further. It couples the personality type with those star signs. If it is just a list of "personality types" where one might fit better than others, then it is not astrology, but possibly psychology. If in fact the best fit is seldom at the star sign it should be, there is simply no point with having the star signs at all. It suffices to call them "personality types" and skip all that star/planet mumbojumbo.

EDIT: Of course, there is quite a bit of nonsense in various areas of psychology as well, but that is a different issue...

EDIT AGAIN: I apologize if I sometimes come off as a bit harsh. It is not really my intention. It is partly my personality and partly a somewhat limited command of the english language.

[idunno]

Yes, but astrology goes further. It couples the personality type with those star signs. If it is just a list of "personality types" where one might fit better than others, then it is not astrology, but possibly psychology. If in fact the best fit is seldom at the star sign it should be, there is simply no point with having the star signs at all. It suffices to call them "personality types" and skip all that star/planet mumbojumbo.

EDIT: Of course, there is quite a bit of nonsense in various areas of psychology as well, but that is a different issue...

the problem is most tests are done in sun signs alone. Not surprise if they dont always fit.
but if sun and rising signs belong to same element, i daresay the person will agree with the interpretation:)

[sinnikal]

No. Not troll. Idunno has stuck around for discussion. That's not troll behaviour.

Check out hundreds of posts by SylviaRox and Bubblefish if you want to see stickiness from trolls:(

[idunno]

Check out hundreds of posts by SylviaRox and Bubblefish if you want to see stickiness from trolls:(

So a Troll is someone who wants to show something that goes aganist your personal biases.
Thats pretty Sinnical:D

[idunno]

if you want prepare the test. ill be back in a few hours;)

[arthwollipot]

thanks.
as for the «laid back», I should have known.Youre an Aussie, and we must bear in mind the influence of our surrondings.
The death predictions as i expected cannot be applied to all sagitarius-pisces rising.:)

Is there something about being an Australian that changes the way the stars influence one's life?

[idunno]

Is there something about being an Australian that changes the way the stars influence one's life?

yes, you walk upside down(grin):D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

see you in 2 hours

[delphi_ote]

So a Troll is someone who wants to show something that goes aganist your personal biases.
No. If you go back and check those threads, the individuals mentioned actually lied about their beliefs just to get a rise out of people. That is a troll. Some suspect you of the same behavior, mainly because you've acted so strangely.

[sinnikal]

So a Troll is someone who wants to show something that goes aganist your personal biases.
Thats pretty Sinnical:D
Well if you are talking about my personal biases then your powers are indeed mighty.
I've revealed nothing about them on this thread, certainly no bias against astrology.
No, I call troll because despite your insistence on being 'tested' you have shown no great urge to take part.
I've seen evasion after evasion, plenty of vague 'I s'pose' and stuff like that, but nothing of any utility to the subject of the thread.
You seem to be employing some sort of 'bait and switch' strategy just to keep people hangin' in there till you've had enough.
Just my $0.02.:)

[idunno]

Well if you are talking about my personal biases then your powers are indeed mighty.
I've revealed nothing about them on this thread, certainly no bias against astrology.
No, I call troll because despite your insistence on being 'tested' you have shown no great urge to take part.
I've seen evasion after evasion, plenty of vague 'I s'pose' and stuff like that, but nothing of any utility to the subject of the thread.
You seem to be employing some sort of 'bait and switch' strategy just to keep people hangin' in there till you've had enough.
Just my $0.02.:)

it sounds like you fellows spend your whole day in the forum.
got no jobs?
Ive got other things to do. I just been training some guitar tunes, thats why i was off for some time...and I study too:eye-poppi

[delphi_ote]

it sounds like you fellows spend your whole day in the forum.
got no jobs?
Ive got other things to do. I just been training some guitar tunes, thats why i was off for some time...and I study too:eye-poppi
In case you were wondering, it's this type of comment that makes people suspect you are a troll. You seem more interested in getting a rise out of people than discussing astrology.

[idunno]

In case you were wondering, it's this type of comment that makes people suspect you are a troll. You seem more interested in getting a rise out of people than discussing astrology.

what have i been doing other than discussing astrology.
certain things are hard to answer in a forum thats why i dont answer them.
and its true.Not all of us can spend the whole day in the forum:rolleyes:

[idunno]

skeptics often ask astrologers what kind of tests they want, to prove astrology.
Well i dont know exactly what test would do but i can tell you that regarding chinese astrology, when i meet someone, 8 out of 10 times i find in their charts what i expect to find.
If you wish you may draw a test from here:)

[idunno]

here is an example.
a few minutes ago i saw the German youth soccer team beating Serbia. A chap called Tyrala scored a goal thaty required originality and creativity.I expected to find Drastic output highly visible in his chart and here it is

born:22 feb 1988

day month year
yin fire yang wood yang earth
yin earth yang wood yang earth

hour pillar is unknown. drastic output in this case is the yang earth in year pillar.In 5 phase theory Fire(his self) produces earth.Since the earth is of the opposite polarity it is called Drastic instead of gracious output.Drastic output or performance is more agressive, original and revolutionary than Gracious output, more conservative and quiet. The element our self produces represents creations, productions, self expression, performance:)

you can get your chart free in the websites www.astro-fengshui.com (http://www.astro-fengshui.com) or www.chinesefortunecalendar.com (http://www.chinesefortunecalendar.com)

[Dr Adequate]

Now, if astrology actually worked, you could predict in advance who was going to score, and make good money by betting on sporting events. It's what I'd do if I could predict the future. Let us know if it works out for you, eh?

[idunno]

Now, if astrology actually worked, you could predict in advance who was going to score, and make good money by betting on sporting events. It's what I'd do if I could predict the future. Let us know if it works out for you, eh?

if astrology predicted the future life would be useless.Dont you see the ridiculous.? Astrologers claimed to be able to do that to make more money.
In a rainy day you can choose go out or stay home. In a bad asttrological period for business you may choose to do business and fail or keep quiet, otherwise you need extra effort to succeed, but astrology doesnt say so and so will happen.Or if it says, it takes a lot of concentration and eye for detail and patience to find out:rolleyes: what it is

[sinnikal]

Errrrrrm...........
I think that's probably enough astrological proselytizing. Now about this challenge. You were saying.........?

[idunno]

Errrrrrm...........
I think that's probably enough astrological proselytizing. Now about this challenge. You were saying.........?


im waiting for it.
ive said Huntsman challenge is ok.:)
In 2 hours ill be in bed