|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Oct 16, 2013 12:28:09 GMT -5
"Because Astrology can be tested by objective statistical means. And it has been. Take a look at the tests that have been done already." I am not aware of a single scientific test that supported astrology. Can you provide an example? Every astrologer and believer in astrology cites Gauquelin's discredited so-called Mars effect (eg www.skepsis.nl/mars.html)But even if, for the sake of argument, we were to accept Gauquelin's "findings" at face value, they certainly wouldn't come anywhere near supporting the claims made for astrology by its practitioners - for example that an eclipse of the Sun on November 3 will cause "difficulties, obstacles and delays". Surely you don't actually believe such nonsense? Of course there will be difficulties, obstacles and delays for millions of people on 3 November. As there is every day, eclipse or not. There's an old joke about a psychiatrist who took over the running of a lunatic asylum. He made a point of getting to know all the inmates, and one man in particular - who had been put in charge of the garden - seemed to be perfectly sane. He went up to this man - his name was Joe - one day while he was tending the rockery and engaged him in conversation. After speaking to him for half an hour (and slipping in a few questions to assess his mental state) he concluded that the man was as sane as he was. "I don't know how you ended up in here, Joe," he said. "but it's obvious to me that you're perfectly normal. There's obviously been a terrible mistake, but I'm going to put things right. I'm going to arrange for you to meet the board of governors on Friday, and if they agree with my assessment you'll be out of here in no time." "That's great news," said Joe. "I've been telling everyone for years that there's nothing wrong with me." "Well, just hang on for another few days and it will all be sorted out," said the psychiatrist, before turning and walking back towards his office. He had only walked a few paces when a rock hit him on the back of the head. "You won't forget Friday, will you?" said Joe. And that's the thing about insanity, isn't it? A person can appear to be perfectly sane and rational - as you do when you comment on other topics - and then tell you that Sunday is going to be a bad hair day for Sagittarians because some tiny planet millions of miles away is badly aspected with a star millions of light years away (which may no longer exist).
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 17, 2013 16:29:04 GMT -5
"Because Astrology can be tested by objective statistical means. And it has been. Take a look at the tests that have been done already." I am not aware of a single scientific test that supported astrology. Can you provide an example? Every astrologer and believer in astrology cites Gauquelin's discredited so-called Mars effect (eg www.skepsis.nl/mars.html)But even if, for the sake of argument, we were to accept Gauquelin's "findings" at face value, they certainly wouldn't come anywhere near supporting the claims made for astrology by its practitioners - for example that an eclipse of the Sun on November 3 will cause "difficulties, obstacles and delays". Surely you don't actually believe such nonsense? Of course there will be difficulties, obstacles and delays for millions of people on 3 November. As there is every day, eclipse or not. There's an old joke about a psychiatrist who took over the running of a lunatic asylum. He made a point of getting to know all the inmates, and one man in particular - who had been put in charge of the garden - seemed to be perfectly sane. He went up to this man - his name was Joe - one day while he was tending the rockery and engaged him in conversation. After speaking to him for half an hour (and slipping in a few questions to assess his mental state) he concluded that the man was as sane as he was. "I don't know how you ended up in here, Joe," he said. "but it's obvious to me that you're perfectly normal. There's obviously been a terrible mistake, but I'm going to put things right. I'm going to arrange for you to meet the board of governors on Friday, and if they agree with my assessment you'll be out of here in no time." "That's great news," said Joe. "I've been telling everyone for years that there's nothing wrong with me." "Well, just hang on for another few days and it will all be sorted out," said the psychiatrist, before turning and walking back towards his office. He had only walked a few paces when a rock hit him on the back of the head. "You won't forget Friday, will you?" said Joe. And that's the thing about insanity, isn't it? A person can appear to be perfectly sane and rational - as you do when you comment on other topics - and then tell you that Sunday is going to be a bad hair day for Sagittarians because some tiny planet millions of miles away is badly aspected with a star millions of light years away (which may no longer exist). False. Gauquelin has not been discredited. In fact, one of the group of Skeptics that was investigating Gauquelin found that Gauquelin underestimated the correlations. www.planetos.info/mmf.htmlAs for the scientific tests, here are a few. www.astrologer.com/tests/basisofastrology.htm#scievidenceBob Marks
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Oct 17, 2013 18:41:17 GMT -5
But this is a page of childish nonsense! Whoever wrote that article doesn't understand the first thing about the scientific method. It's like something a ten-year-old would write. He can't even spell! And where are the scientific tests? The only "research" mentioned is - surprise, surprise - Gauquelin's tiny anomaly (which is so insignificant it's hardly worth discrediting anyway). Gauquelin's findings are to astrology what Hahneman's are to homeopathy: and the measurable/detectable "active ingredients" of both these "systems" are the same. If that's the best you can come up with in terms of evidence - or even arguments - in support of astrology, then you might as well admit that it's all nonsense. I could make a better case than that for the existence of the Tooth Fairy.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 17, 2013 20:37:07 GMT -5
But this is a page of childish nonsense! Whoever wrote that article doesn't understand the first thing about the scientific method. It's like something a ten-year-old would write. He can't even spell! And where are the scientific tests? The only "research" mentioned is - surprise, surprise - Gauquelin's tiny anomaly (which is so insignificant it's hardly worth discrediting anyway). Gauquelin's findings are to astrology what Hahneman's are to homeopathy: and the measurable/detectable "active ingredients" of both these "systems" are the same. If that's the best you can come up with in terms of evidence - or even arguments - in support of astrology, then you might as well admit that it's all nonsense. I could make a better case than that for the existence of the Tooth Fairy. Hi Zak. It's been a while. How have you been? Of course what you say here is nothing more than an ad hominem. If you have any facts that show any of these studies are wrong, it would be nice to hear the details. But I know that's not your style. Have fun. Bob Marks
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Oct 17, 2013 21:21:05 GMT -5
Dear Bob;
I'm 100% sure that's not who you think it is -- that gentleman isn't disposed to mention the tooth fairy. However, that phrase is one of Specter's favorite volleys.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Oct 18, 2013 3:57:59 GMT -5
"If you have any facts that show any of these studies are wrong..."
WHICH studies? You still haven't cited any. And the only "study" (a one-person "study" by an astrologer) mentioned in this article is Gauquelin's alleged statistical anomaly.
"Of course what you say here is nothing more than an ad hominem."
No, it isn't. I was actually criticizing the content rather than the author, but in any case my trusty OED defines "ad hominem" thusly: "Ad Hominem: A category of fallacies in which an argument or claim is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author."
The operative word here is "irrelevant". If the facts are *relevant*, it is not an ad hominem. For example if a researcher were to claim that black people are intellectually inferior to white people, it would not be an ad hominem to reject his views if he was known to be the Grand Master of the Ku Klux Klan.
It is highly relevent here that the author of the article you posted, Robert Currey, is an astrologer, not a scientist; and furthermore he is an astrologer who is well-known for his crackpot views on a range of subjects (Professor Brian Cox described him as the man who "flew the flag for irrationalism"). It is certainly evident from the childish drivel he wrote here that he clearly does not understand the way science works.
Therefore my dismissal of his diatribe is not an ad hominem.
But even leaving that aside, he doesn't actually say anything, or provide any evidence, to support his - and your - claims for astrology. So we are - literally - arguing about nothing.
I'm sure you're old enough to remember the punchline of that old commercial for Wendy burgers : )
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Oct 18, 2013 9:01:10 GMT -5
When I think about astrology, its multi-millennia-long history always comes to mind. If astrology worked, if it had any validity at all, I should think that that would have been clearly demonstrated by now.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 18, 2013 10:06:35 GMT -5
"If you have any facts that show any of these studies are wrong..." WHICH studies? You still haven't cited any. And the only "study" (a one-person "study" by an astrologer) mentioned in this article is Gauquelin's alleged statistical anomaly. "Of course what you say here is nothing more than an ad hominem." No, it isn't. I was actually criticizing the content rather than the author, but in any case my trusty OED defines "ad hominem" thusly: "Ad Hominem: A category of fallacies in which an argument or claim is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author." The operative word here is "irrelevant". If the facts are *relevant*, it is not an ad hominem. For example if a researcher were to claim that black people are intellectually inferior to white people, it would not be an ad hominem to reject his views if he was known to be the Grand Master of the Ku Klux Klan. It is highly relevent here that the author of the article you posted, Robert Currey, is an astrologer, not a scientist; and furthermore he is an astrologer who is well-known for his crackpot views on a range of subjects (Professor Brian Cox described him as the man who "flew the flag for irrationalism"). It is certainly evident from the childish drivel he wrote here that he clearly does not understand the way science works. Therefore my dismissal of his diatribe is not an ad hominem. But even leaving that aside, he doesn't actually say anything, or provide any evidence, to support his - and your - claims for astrology. So we are - literally - arguing about nothing. I'm sure you're old enough to remember the punchline of that old commercial for Wendy burgers : ) Actually, the second article cited several studies. You didn't comment on any of them. Correct that your original comments were not an ad hominem. However, by simply calling the article names without citing any evidence or even bothering to quote from the articles, your comments have no support whatsoever. And your comments here about Robert Currey clearly are an ad hominem. On top of that, Currey didn't do any of the research himself. He was merely citing the research of others. Are you claiming that all of those researchers are also "crackpots?" Bob Marks
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 18, 2013 10:10:06 GMT -5
When I think about astrology, its multi-millennia-long history always comes to mind. If astrology worked, if it had any validity at all, I should think that that would have been clearly demonstrated by now. The only way to scientifically test astrology is with multivariable statistical analysis, and that's only been around since 1958, not mufti-millenia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivariate_statistics#HistoryBob Marks
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Oct 18, 2013 13:47:41 GMT -5
Even if multivariable statistical analysis were the only way to run a test, and I do not believe that it is, there have been 55 years to do it that way. That’s plenty of time to have demonstrated the efficacy of astrology. That has not happened (to my knowledge).
==========
The double blind test I suggested a couple years ago would, briefly, go like this:
1 - Research Group A interviews people (“subjects”) and gets information about them including - birth time, date, place - career history - hobbies and interests - and so on -- whatever astrologers think astrologic methods can tell them
They prepare a list which gives each subject’s birth time, date and place. Subjects themselves are identified on the list only by a randomly assigned number. All other collected information is locked up somewhere so nobody can look at it.
2 - Research Group B receives the list from Group A. They receive no other information. Each entry on the list is assigned to an Astrologer who, based only on the birth information from the list, answers all the same questions the subjects answered
3 - Research Group C compares the Subject’s answers with the Astrologer’s answers. If astrology works, then there should be a lot of agreement between what the Astrologers say and the real-life situation of the Subjects.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 18, 2013 16:28:07 GMT -5
Even if multivariable statistical analysis were the only way to run a test, and I do not believe that it is, there have been 55 years to do it that way. That’s plenty of time to have demonstrated the efficacy of astrology. That has not happened (to my knowledge). ========== The double blind test I suggested a couple years ago would, briefly, go like this: 1 - Research Group A interviews people (“subjects”) and gets information about them including - birth time, date, place - career history - hobbies and interests - and so on -- whatever astrologers think astrologic methods can tell them They prepare a list which gives each subject’s birth time, date and place. Subjects themselves are identified on the list only by a randomly assigned number. All other collected information is locked up somewhere so nobody can look at it. 2 - Research Group B receives the list from Group A. They receive no other information. Each entry on the list is assigned to an Astrologer who, based only on the birth information from the list, answers all the same questions the subjects answered 3 - Research Group C compares the Subject’s answers with the Astrologer’s answers. If astrology works, then there should be a lot of agreement between what the Astrologers say and the real-life situation of the Subjects. There have been tests in the last 55 years, Ray. I posted them above. The test you propose looks good to me. Let's discuss it after November. I will have more time then (and the aspects will be better ). Please put it on your calendar. Bob
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Oct 18, 2013 21:15:25 GMT -5
Multivariable statistical analysis is exactly the kind of approach astrologers prefer, because it is incapable of reaching solid or definitive conclusions. One can argue about the results of a multivariable statistical study forever, because they rely on interpretation, and that is exactly what astrologers are at home with. Multivariable results would allow them to fudge the issue indefinitely, while at the same time allowing them to claim that astrology was the subject of "scientific study". The method is primarily used as a predictive tool, not as a means to detect or measure physical forces. Astrologers would be able to argue and debate the outcome of MSA studies forever.
In science, the normal sequence is to first observe a phenomenon, then measure it, then try to explain it in terms of established laws and principles by testing it against various hypothesis. All forces can be measured if they can be observed. Gravity, for example, is invisible, but that doesn't prevent it from being demonstrated and measured.
All scientific investigation begins with an observable phenomenon. What Bob and other astrologers are proposing - especially when they suggest inherently inconclusive approaches like MSA - is to carry out tests to validate a phenomenon that cannot be observed, demonstrated or measured in the first place. This is just a ruse to give astrology a semblance of scientific respectability.
If such a thing as "astrological force" (or whatever you want to call it) existed, and it was universally dispersed as astrologers claim, then it should and would be possible to isolate that effect in some repeatable experiment. The notion that there is a force which is so universally-distributed as to have an influence on every facet of life - from how people (or their pets!) will feel or behave on a certain date to their physical characteristics and natural talents - yet cannot be isolated in any experimental setting, is completely nonsensical. As is the idea that such a widely-distributed force (or principle etc) can affect human behavior but not (measurably) physical objects.
We can also approach astrology from the other end, so to speak, and consider the likelihood or unlikelihood of the claim that is being made, which is that the positions in the sky of various celestial bodies (relative to us, and in arbritrary sections of the sky) can have specific and predictable effects on human behavior and human biology. This claim is patently absurd. And it is even more absurd when one takes into account the fact that none of the celestial bodies whose positions are calculated by astrologers are actually where they appear to be (the early astrologers did not know, of course, that the light from distant stars can take millions of years to reach earth), and some of them may have ceased to exist millions of years ago.
By any scientific terms of reference, therefore - and even on the basis of commonsense - the claims made for astrology are somewhere on the outer limits of absurdity. If, to quote Hume, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", then astrology requires mega-extraordinary evidence.
The reality, of course, is that it has no supportive evidence AT ALL.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 19, 2013 8:14:35 GMT -5
Multivariable statistical analysis is exactly the kind of approach astrologers prefer, because it is incapable of reaching solid or definitive conclusions. One can argue about the results of a multivariable statistical study forever, because they rely on interpretation, and that is exactly what astrologers are at home with. Multivariable results would allow them to fudge the issue indefinitely, while at the same time allowing them to claim that astrology was the subject of "scientific study". The method is primarily used as a predictive tool, not as a means to detect or measure physical forces. Astrologers would be able to argue and debate the outcome of MSA studies forever. Wrong. If what you say here is true, then scientists would not consider multivariable statistical analysis. But they do. True. LOL! If the correlation could not be observed, then it wouldn't have been noticed and there would have been no Astrology! But is has been isolated by Gauquelin. BTW, the skeptic's study that "discredited" Gauquelin has itself been discredited. Atone point, the skeptics even stretched the truth. See "The Tenacious Mars Effect." Calling something "patently absurd" without bothering to demonstrate that claim is not proper scientific procedure, is it? As for your claim about distant stars, the vast portion of Astrology has to do with planets. Light from the planets reaches us, at most, in a few hours. The planets don't move a significant amount during that time. As for the Stars, they are just place-markers. When an astrologer says that a planet conjunct a certain star has such-and-such an effect, what is really being claimed is that the planet correlates with certain effects when the planet is in sht section of the sky where that star happens to be. Once again, the Stars are merely place-markers. Since the reasons you gave are false, your conclusion here is unjustified. Bob Marks
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Oct 19, 2013 20:52:09 GMT -5
"If what you say here is true, then scientists would not consider multivariable statistical analysis. But they do."
No, they use it as an investigative tool, not as proof of anything.
"LOL! If the correlation could not be observed, then it wouldn't have been noticed and there would have been no Astrology!"
Nice try. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by an astrologer using circular logic.
If the alleged correlation could be observed we wouldn't be having this discussion, because anything that can be observed can be measured. The only people who notice a correlation are astrologers, in the same way that homeopaths notice a correlation between taking homeopathic "medicine" and recovery from illness, or African witchdoctors notice a correlation between beheading chickens and having a good crop harvest. Many belief systems - and all superstitions - have grown up around imaginary correlations. What I said was that astrologers such as yourself claim to want to carry out tests to validate a phenomenon that cannot be observed, demonstrated or measured in the first place. I said nothing about noticing correlations.
The alleged correlation between astrology and real world events has NOT been observed by anyone other than astrologers. The correlation is the claim you and other astrologers are making. You could equally claim that ghosts, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, angels, Father Christmas, fairies at the end of the garden and flying saucers have all been "noticed". And by millions of people! But as you well know, anecdotal evidence by itself has no currency in science.
"But is has been isolated by Gauquelin. BTW, the skeptic's study that "discredited" Gauquelin has itself been discredited. Atone point, the skeptics even stretched the truth. See 'The Tenacious Mars Effect.'"
So we're back to Gauquelin again. I am very familiar with Gaquelin's findings. You, like most astrologers, cling to them as a man in a sinking ship clings to a life-vest. I, on the other hand, have no (life) vested interest in proving (or disproving) astrology, and can therefore assess Gauquelin's claims more objectively than you can. And I have to say they don't impress me or persuade me that there is anything at all in astrology. Again, we are talking about a statistical study carried out by one man (assisted by his wife) who was himself an astrologer. There was ample scope in his methodology - for example in the selection and analysis of the data set - for selection bias. Various attempts to replicate his findings found none of the correlations he had observed.
Additionally, as I thought we had already established (or at least you did not contest the point), the correlations Gauquelin claimed to have observed (primarily the supposed correlation between athletic eminence and the position of the planet Mars), even if, for the sale of argument, we accepted them, would go nowhere near supporting the bulk of the claims made for astrology by astrologers. By no stretch of the imagination could Gauquelin's alleged correlation support the claim that various planetary aspects produce specific actions, states of mind etc of the "there will be difficulties, obstacles, delays on 3 November" variety. Nothing in Gauquelin's alleged findings would support predictions of this kind.
So what are we left with? A one-off study by an astrologer - hardly what you'd call a disinterested observer - with no independent controls, claims to have discovered a correlation which cannot be replicated by other *independent* researchers (repeatability being a requirement in science).
As I'm sure you are aware, Alexander Y. Panchin pointed out that Gauquelin did not adjust the statistical significance of the Mars Effect for multiple comparisons. His damning conclusion: "There are 10 celestial bodies and 12 sectors for them to be in. Furthermore, there are 132 combinations of sector pairs and thus 1,320 different combinations of a planet with two sectors. There is about a 25% chance to find at least one such combination (of one planet and two sectors) for a random dataset of the same size as Gauquelin’s that would yield a result with apparent statistical significance like the one obtained by Gauquelin. What this means is that when you adjust for multiple comparisons, the Mars effect is no longer statistically significant even at the modest significance level of 0.05 and is probably a false positive." (The Saturn-Mars Effect. Skeptic Magazine Vol 16 #1, 2010)
As I am sure you are also aware, a major study carried out in 1994 by the Committee for the Study of Paranormal Phenomenon (Comité pour l’Étude des Phénomènes Paranormaux, or CFEPP) in France found no evidence whatsoever to support Gauquelin's findings, and concluded that the correlations he claimed to have observed were attributable to data selection bias.
"Light from the planets reaches us, at most, in a few hours. The planets don't move a significant amount during that time."
Are you saying a few hours makes no difference in astrological calculations? Because in my understanding of astrology a couple of minutes can make all the difference in the world. Isn't that why astrologers always want to know the *exact* time of a person's birth?
But in fact it isn't just a matter of a few hours, is it? It's a matter of a few hours multiplied by all the planets, and all the factors that go into erecting a chart.
Even the light from the sun - the most important celestial body in astrology - takes between 8 and 9 minutes to reach earth. When you see the sun just above the horizon in the evening, you are actually seeing it where it was eight or nine minutes earlier. In reality it has already set and is below the horizon. Since the position of the sun at the exact minute of a person's birth is of crucial importance in astrology, this 8-9 minutes can make the difference between a person having Pisces or Aries as their sun sign. A huge difference in astrological terms (indeed, the accuracy of time and place of birth data is crucial to Gauquelin's "Mars effect" correlation!). The light from mars varies from 18 minutes to 30 minutes. The light from Neptune takes over four hours to reach earth, so that when you look at Neptune through a telescope you are seeing it where it was four hours ago.
And so on for all the other planets in our solar system. None of them are where we observe them to be at any given moment. And since astrology places so much importance on the "aspects", or the precise angular relationship of the planets - in fact you could say it is the whole ball game - on this basis alone astrology can be dismissed as having no basis in objective reality.
Again, of course, the early astrologers had no way of knowing about this time gap. And latter-day astrologers pretend not to notice it, while hoping that nobody else will.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 20, 2013 11:08:01 GMT -5
"If what you say here is true, then scientists would not consider multivariable statistical analysis. But they do." No, they use it as an investigative tool, not as proof of anything. Statistics itself is not "proof" of anything. But with statistics, it is possible to see how far a result is from chance. For example, there is no "proof" from statistics that any substance can cause cancer. But the odds against the results being chance are enormously large. That is why scientists feel confident in claiming that certain substances can cause cancer. Nice try right back at you. Something doesn't become circular logic just on your say-so. How is what I said "circular?" But the correlation has been observed. Even skeptic Geoffrey Dean admitted that there was a "small" effect shown by the Gaquelin data.. And you of course have a degree in science? What exactly are your credentials? Wrong again. In fact, Gauquelin underestimated the effects. www.astrozero.co.uk/astroscience/koll1ge.htmErtel's findings have never been refuted. That's only because Gauquelin's study was limited in its scope. He wasn't examining all of Astrology, just a very narrow part. For centuries, Astrologers maintained that people born with Mars rising or culminating would be forceful and aggressive. Gauquelin found that Mars had a higher chance of being in those areas for sports champions and professional military men. In fact, Gauquelin found that the Moon, Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn also produced the effects that astrologers claimed. It takes only one white crow to prove conclusively that al crows aren't black. Gauquelin found five white crows. Correct. Scientific studies are necessarily limited in scope. What Gauquelin did demonstrate is that there is an "Astrological Effect", and that demonstration opened the door. The next question becomes: How far does this effect go? Once again, they did not refute Ertel. His work still stands. But there is an additional problem with Panchin's claims. The sectors the planets happened to fall in just happened to coincide with what Astrologers have been saying for over 2,000 years. Panchin claims that there is a 25% chance that you would get one combination, but he neglects to mention that Gauquelin found five such combinations. The odds of that are 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/4, or 1/4,096. But that wasn't my point at all. In Astrology,it's the position of the planets that count. The question now becomes: How far do planets move in a few minutes, or even in a few hours? The answer is, hardly any distance at all. Yes the time of birth is critical to having an accurate horoscope. But an accurate time is necessary to calculate the Ascendant and Midheaven. These have nothing at all to do with any planet. Bob Marks
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Oct 21, 2013 11:58:31 GMT -5
"Statistics itself is not "proof" of anything. But with statistics, it is possible to see how far a result is from chance. For example, there is no "proof" from statistics that any substance can cause cancer. But the odds against the results being chance are enormously large. That is why scientists feel confident in claiming that certain substances can cause cancer."
Not true. The statical link between substances like tobacco, asbestos etc and cancer were well-known for a long time before these substances were officially deemed to be carcinogenic. But the proof came from direct observation of the effects of these substances on cells and tissue in laboratory experiments (mainly on mice).
Furthermore, the statistical evidence for a causal link between these substances and cancer was noted by numerous independent researchers (unlike astrology, where no causal link of any kind has been found by independent researchers, despite repeated attempts to find one).
And furthermore, the level of statistical evidence required to establish a causal link is very different in medicine and physics (ie, it is far lower in medicine).
"That's only because Gauquelin's study was limited in its scope."
Exactly. And as I said, even if we were foolish enough to accept his claims, they wouldn't even begin to substantiate the claims astrologers make for astrology - ie, distant planets exerting an influence over complex human behavior and events.
"What Gauquelin did demonstrate is that there is an 'Astrological Effect'"
No, it did not. What it demonstrated was that if you trust an astrology enthusiast to look for a correlation between human traits and the positions of the planets, and you allow them to choose their own data set, they will almost invariably find one. Just as Adolf Hitler's scientists found a correlation between having blue eyes and racial superiority. Data selection bias is common, even among teams of trained researchers.
The question a scientific-minded person asks is: Which is more likely - that the position of a planet millions of miles away can, through some completely unknown and undetectable agency, determine the physical characteristics of a person born in Paris, OR that the astrology enthusiast who found this correlation was the victim of data selection bias (if, indeed, he did not deliberately cheat)?
Occam's razor dictates acceptance of the latter explanation.
Arguing about Gauquelin's findings is like arguing about how many angels you can fit on the head of a pin, since there is no reason at all to give them credence. How do you know he didn't fudge his results to get the result he wanted? (Do you believe Uri Geller when he claims to be able to bend spoons with his mind? Are you assuming that Gauquelin was honest because he was an astrologer?)How do you know his result wasn't a false positive, or a one-off fluke? (Like the guy who plays golf for the first time and gets a hole in one.)How do you know his wife didn't "adjust" his data to keep him happy? (Wives do things like that; and she had free access to his work.) How do you know there isn't some other factor involved that has nothing at all to do with an astrological influence?
Any one of these explanations is infinitely more likely to be true than that "astrological waves" (or whatever) emanating from Mars caused people to become athletes rather than doctors or lawyers. Surely you can see how absurd that idea is?
"In Astrology,it's the position of the planets that count. The question now becomes: How far do planets move in a few minutes, or even in a few hours? The answer is, hardly any distance at all."
You've got to be kidding! To begin with the earth travels at 67,000 miles per hour, which means that in four hours (the amount of time it takes the light from Neptune to reach earth) it travels over a quarter of a million miles! It isn't just the speed and position of individual planets we're talking about, it's their speed and position relative to each other. So by the time earth has travelled 268,000 miles, Neptune will have travelled 48,000 miles (half the time in the opposite direction). And the same goes for all the other planets, of course. Which means that when an astrologer measures out his all-important "aspects" (ie, the relative angles of the planets to each other), these angles bear no relationship at all to the *actual* angles/aspects. Just for instance, a perfect square is a 90° aspect, and the more perfect the square, the stronger the attributes associated with that aspect. But in reality your "perfect square" is imaginary, and does not accurately represent the *actual* angle between the two planets in question. The true position could have an orb (deviation from the square) of 3, 4, 5 degrees or more. Multiply this unpredictability by all the planets - and all the aspects - and you end up with a chart that bears very little resemblance to the actual positions of the planets.
See, it's all just too silly to take seriously.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 21, 2013 12:34:11 GMT -5
"Statistics itself is not "proof" of anything. But with statistics, it is possible to see how far a result is from chance. For example, there is no "proof" from statistics that any substance can cause cancer. But the odds against the results being chance are enormously large. That is why scientists feel confident in claiming that certain substances can cause cancer." Not true. The statical link between substances like tobacco, asbestos etc and cancer were well-known for a long time before these substances were officially deemed to be carcinogenic. But the proof came from direct observation of the effects of these substances on cells and tissue in laboratory experiments (mainly on mice). Furthermore, the statistical evidence for a causal link between these substances and cancer was noted by numerous independent researchers (unlike astrology, where no causal link of any kind has been found by independent researchers, despite repeated attempts to find one). Statistical evidence for Astrology has also been noticed by several researchers. I gave you the links. Perhaps you missed them. Here they are again: www.cell.com/current-biology/retrieve/pii/S0960982213007549www.astrologer.com/tests/carlson.htmwww.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_23_2_ertel.pdfwww.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_21_2_braesch.pdfdeepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/36301/b2092645.0001.001.pdf;jsessionid=1A5D35F9D80251B044B59AB4318ED0C1?sequence=2What you say here does not invalidate the work done by other researchers. And the correlations Gauquelin was looking for were limited to claims made by Astrologers. He didn't look for just any old correlation. Wrong. A scientist will look at the data and see if it fits a working hypothesis. We know this because Gauquelin's work has been replicated. Indeed, Dr. Ertel found that Gauquelin underestimated the effects. But no one ever claimed that there were "astrological waves." The only claim made is that there is a correlation. These correlations have been demonstrated by several researchers. Astrological horoscopes show the position of planets in relation to the Earth. The critical thing here is degrees, not miles. So your points here are a Strawman. What's silly is that you are ignoring the results of other researchers and ignoring studies that showed that Gauquelin underestimated the correlation. Bob Marks
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Oct 21, 2013 14:43:32 GMT -5
I'll come back to the results of the other researchers.
"Wrong. A scientist will look at the data and see if it fits a working hypothesis."
But there is no "working hypothesis" for astrology.
"Astrological horoscopes show the position of planets in relation to the Earth. The critical thing here is degrees, not miles. So your points here are a Strawman."
I'm not sure whether you're being deliberately obtuse here... I understand perfectly that astrologers measure degrees, not miles. My point is that the degrees you are measuring do not accurately represent the *actual* positions of relative degrees of the planets.
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Oct 21, 2013 14:45:20 GMT -5
Correction: "OR relative degrees".
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 21, 2013 16:31:22 GMT -5
I'll come back to the results of the other researchers. "Wrong. A scientist will look at the data and see if it fits a working hypothesis." But there is no "working hypothesis" for astrology. Sure there is. The apparent positions of planets at a person's birth correlate with events and choices in a person's life. What astrologers are concerned with is the planets as they appear from Earth. It is claimed that there is correlation with those placements and events on Earth. And that is what researchers are finding to be the case. Bob Marks
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Oct 21, 2013 18:54:16 GMT -5
"The apparent positions of planets at a person's birth correlate with events and choices in a person's life."
No, they don't. That's the claim you are making, and it is an outrageous claim with absolutely no facts to support it. Your only supporting argument is the "research" results of an astrology enthusiast who worked without oversight, selected his own data set, and claimed to find a correlation between the position of Mars and a person's sporting prowess. No intelligent, rational person would find this "evidence" even remotely persuasive.
And I note you were careful to say "apparent position". Presumable, then, you accept that the planets in the sky aren't actually where they are depicted in an astrological chart.
"What astrologers are concerned with is the planets as they appear from Earth. It is claimed that there is correlation with those placements and events on Earth. And that is what researchers are finding to be the case."
Only researchers who are predisposed to believe in astrology.
Incidentally, I happen to think that astrology can be a very useful analytic and therapeutic tool, but not because the planets influence human affairs through some kind of "astrological force". In my opinion astrologers lose all credibility when they make this claim.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Oct 21, 2013 19:09:01 GMT -5
Incidentally, I happen to think that astrology can be a very useful analytic and therapeutic tool, but not because the planets influence human affairs through some kind of "astrological force". In my opinion astrologers lose all credibility when they make this claim. Dear Mr. Rubble: How can you believe that astrology is a useful analytic and therapeutic tool if you don't think it has any validity? I can't follow your reasoning. --Debutante
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 21, 2013 19:34:04 GMT -5
Strange that you should say that since I have been posting research results from many others (including scientists) who who found similar results. That's called an Argument from Intimidation and it is a well known error in logic. Unfortunately for you, I don't intimidate easily. Yes, and I explained why that is irrelevant. Wrong. Just one example, the scientists who recently found that sleep is influenced by the phases of the Moon are not believers in Astrology. They collected the data years earlier during another research project. One night, they got into a conversation and someone jokingly suggested that Moon phases might influence sleep. They looked up phases of the Moon, lined it up with their previous data, and lo and behold they found a correlation. You are contradicting yourself here. If Astrology doesn't work, that it cannot be an analytic tool of any sort. And the only thing I claim is a correlation. Of course, in order for there to be a correlation, it makes sense to hypothethize an "astrological force." However, if you prefer, we can term it "astrological effect." Bob Marks
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Oct 22, 2013 4:20:41 GMT -5
"Strange that you should say that since I have been posting research results from many others (including scientists) who who found similar results."
There are scientists out there who have carried out research into, and found evidence for the Loch Ness monster, flying saucers, ghosts and a range of other phenomena that serious scientists would dismiss. I know a man - a highly qualified scientist, educated at Oxford - who can show you "compelling evidence" that Stonehenge was built by extraterrestrials and that there's a spaceship buried underneath the Great Pyramid. It's the quality of the research that matters, whether it is peer-reviewed, and whether it can be replicated by other, disinterested researchers. In other words, none of the "research" you cite is good quality. If it was, of course, you wouldn't be putting so much emphasis on Gauquelin's research.
"That's called an Argument from Intimidation and it is a well known error in logic. Unfortunately for you, I don't intimidate easily."
Yes, but that's not my argument, that's just my opinion. My argument is that that you don't have a shred of credible evidence to support your claims of an "astrological force" that cannot be observed, measured or demonstrated.
"Yes, and I explained why that is irrelevant."
No, you didn't. It certainly is relevant. Your response to this was meaningless gobbledegook about the apparent positions of the planets being more important than the actual positions. To me, that's tantamount to an admission that astrology has no basis in objective reality.
"Just one example, the scientists who recently found that sleep is influenced by the phases of the Moon are not believers in Astrology. They collected the data years earlier during another research project. One night, they got into a conversation and someone jokingly suggested that Moon phases might influence sleep. They looked up phases of the Moon, lined it up with their previous data, and lo and behold they found a correlation."
I was wondering when you'd mention that research : ) You are correct, the scientists who found evidence that sleep is influenced by the moon were not believers in astrology. And if you read a few of the interviews they've given, you discover that they still don't believe in astrology. That's because the effects of the moon - which is practically on top of us - are understandable in terms of known and accepted gravitational and magnetic forces. The planets, on the other hand, are hundreds of millions, and in some cases billions of miles away. Neptune is over 2.5 billion miles from earth. It is nonsensical to try to make a comparison between the gravitational effects of our own satellite and the "astrological influence" of planets billions of miles away, whose gravitational influence would be of homeopathic proportions. Furthermore, the idea that different planets influence human behavior differently, and in distinct ways, is also patently absurd and not even supported by any of the dubious research you cited.
"You are contradicting yourself here. If Astrology doesn't work, that it cannot be an analytic tool of any sort. And the only thing I claim is a correlation. Of course, in order for there to be a correlation, it makes sense to hypothethize an 'astrological force.' However, if you prefer, we can term it 'astrological effect.'
I never contradict myself. I didn't say astrology "doesn't work". I said there is no evidence to support the claim of an "astrological influence" (or "force", or "effect" or whatever you want to call it). The planets do not influence or determine human behavior in any way. However, systems that are consistent within themselves can be effective psychological and psychotherapeutic tools. Many psychotherapists - particularly of the Jungian school - use astrology, Tarot, i-Ching and other divinatory systems in their work. Symbolism is the language of the unconscious mind, and the symbols of astrology, Tarot etc., can be used to gain access to these deeper layers of consciousness, and provide a channel of expression and release of repressed negative content.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 22, 2013 9:07:13 GMT -5
"Strange that you should say that since I have been posting research results from many others (including scientists) who who found similar results." There are scientists out there who have carried out research into, and found evidence for the Loch Ness monster, flying saucers, ghosts and a range of other phenomena that serious scientists would dismiss. I know a man - a highly qualified scientist, educated at Oxford - who can show you "compelling evidence" that Stonehenge was built by extraterrestrials and that there's a spaceship buried underneath the Great Pyramid. It's the quality of the research that matters, whether it is peer-reviewed, and whether it can be replicated by other, disinterested researchers. In other words, none of the "research" you cite is good quality. If it was, of course, you wouldn't be putting so much emphasis on Gauquelin's research. Yes. But you haven't demonstrated that any of the researchers I cited are in that category. All you are doing here is making an unfounded assertion. Where is your evidence that any of these researchers have done bad work? Really? I have cited the work of several researchers. It is up to you now to actually demonstrate that their work is not credible. So far, all we have is your claim that it isn't. Where is your counter-evidence? Ho hum. More name-calling. Something doesn't become "meaningless gobbledegook" merely on your say-so. The apparent position of the planets as observed from the Earth is objectively verifiable data. The correlation of these apparent placements with events here on Earth is also objectively verifiable through statistics. Once again, you are resorting to name-calling instead of giving solid evidence or reasons. LOL! They don't have to believe in Astrology. Their research results speak for themselves. Well what did you expect? If they did believe in Astrology, do you really think they would say so? Because of the present bias against anything "paranormal;", they probably would have been ostracized and their research grants cut off. You have made so many errors here, it is difficult to know where to start. 1) Exactly what are these "known and accepted gravitational and magnetic forces" from the Moon and exactly how do they manage to interfere with people's sleep? How come it is only the Full Moon that does this and Not the New Moon? 2) You are assuming that if there is an effect from the planets, that it must be gravitational in nature. The fact is that the objectively observable correlations between planetary positions and events here on Earth need to be explained. Obviously it cannot be gravity that is doing this. There must be another explanation for these objectively observable correlations. For years, scientists could not explain the flight of bumblebees by using known scientific laws. It seems that according to these laws, bumblebees were too heavy to fly. But no scientist ever claimed that bumblees can't fly and our observations of them must be some sort of illusion or experimental error. In effect, that is what you are doing here. You are claiming that observed correlations cannot really have been observed because you cannot explain them in terms of known forces. 3) Once again, you end by name calling instead of citing evidence. Research does not become "dubious" just because you say so. If it is dubious, all you have to do is show exactly where it is. Why haven't you done this? But you did contradict yourself. You said that Astrology is an analytic tool. Suppose a therapist looks at a horoscope and gives a diagnosis of a patient. Are you saying that this diagnosis has validity? But why would this correlation hold but the correlation of planetary positions with career be "dubious?" Please explain that contradiction. Bob Marks
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Oct 22, 2013 17:45:19 GMT -5
"Yes. But you haven't demonstrated that any of the researchers I cited are in that category. All you are doing here is making an unfounded assertion. Where is your evidence that any of these researchers have done bad work?"
But I am very familiar with the researchers you've cited. I've even met one of them several times. There isn't what I would judge to be credible scientist among them. And you're not going to get me bogged down in some "angels on the head of a pin" discussion about the relative merits (or absence thereof) of this or that researcher, or this or that study. None of these studies has been peer-reviewed, nor have independent researchers (as opposed to astrology enthusiasts) been able to replicate their results. The researchers you are citing are, not to put too fine a point on it, crackpots. If you consider them to be credible, well then you are an even bigger fool than I took you for.
The simple fact of the matter - and it is always going to be the bottom line - is that there isn't an iota of scientific evidence to support astrology. As I said, even if Gauquelin's study was valid (and I don't accept for a minute that it was), it wouldn't even begin to make a case for the claims made for astrology.
Believers and enthusiasts are always the same. They can discuss and debate their subject endlessly, even if it has no basis at all in reality. Religious nuts do it all the time, arguing about what God *really* meant when he said this or that in the Bible. They become so involved with the world they've created, they are no longer capable of seeing it for the self-delusion that it is.
There is no scientific basis for astrology. There is no credible evidence for astrology. There is no known mechanism that would accommodate astrology. There are no known physical forces that would make astrology possible. No astrological force or effect can be directly observed using any instrumentation. No astrological force or effect can be measured using any scientific method. In short, astrology is childish nonsense. If you believe in it, well, good luck to you. As P.T. Barnum is supposed to have said (but didn't), there's one born every minute.
"LOL! They don't have to believe in Astrology. Their research results speak for themselves."
You completely missed my point. You miss points a lot, actually. I'm not sure whether you are being deliberately obtuse or just a bit slow on the uptake. "Well what did you expect? If they did believe in Astrology, do you really think they would say so? Because of the present bias against anything "paranormal;", they probably would have been ostracized and their research grants cut off."
True. Because it is universally accepted in the scientific community that astrology is rubbish. : )
"You have made so many errors here..."
In your dreams. I have made no errors.
"1) Exactly what are these "known and accepted gravitational and magnetic forces" from the Moon and exactly how do they manage to interfere with people's sleep? How come it is only the Full Moon that does this and Not the New Moon?"
You're an astrologer and you don't know that the moon exerts a gravitational pull on the earth? You don't know that the moon has a magnetic field? (Several, actually.)
"2) You are assuming that if there is an effect from the planets, that it must be gravitational in nature. The fact is that the objectively observable correlations between planetary positions and events here on Earth need to be explained."
No, they do not, because they don't exist. You can explain them when you can demonstrate that they exist.
"In effect, that is what you are doing here. You are claiming that observed correlations cannot really have been observed because you cannot explain them in terms of known forces."
No, I am contesting the validity of these findings. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, right? I would hardly call the results of a study carried out by an astrologer, with no oversight, who selected his own data set, and whose findings could not be replicated, extraordinary proof.
I would also question the integrity of the researcher. And his wife. Are we supposed to take it on trust that one or both of them didn't manipulate the data to get a positive result? Who in their right mind would trust an astrologer? : )
"3) Once again, you end by name calling instead of citing evidence. Research does not become "dubious" just because you say so. If it is dubious, all you have to do is show exactly where it is. Why haven't you done this?"
There *is* no evidence. No one can prove a negative. I can only look at all the evidence purporting to support astrology and make my own mind up. And I have actually done that, in some depth and at some length. I'm familiar with all the research you've referred to. I found it shoddy, shabby and not remotely convincing. If you found it persuasive, then I guess we just see things differently. Or maybe you just have a need to believe.
"But you did contradict yourself. You said that Astrology is an analytic tool. Suppose a therapist looks at a horoscope and gives a diagnosis of a patient. Are you saying that this diagnosis has validity? But why would this correlation hold but the correlation of planetary positions with career be "dubious?" Please explain that contradiction."
There is no contradiction to explain. A diagnosis of illness (of any kind) cannot be made on the basis of a horoscope. That's not what I meant. What I meant was that all self-consistent systems can be useful as therapeutic and analytic tools. The basis of the system doesn't have to be valid. Both astrology and Tarot incorporate archetypal symbols, which makes them especially useful in analytical psychology and psychotherapy. They represent an orgazinational framework in that they include and categorize all the important elements of the psyche. On a superficial level, people derive a mild therapeutic effect from reading their horoscope. Why? Because the human mind is target-oriented. It thrives on direction and purpose, and most people are lost and anxious because they perceive their future to be uncertain. An affirmative message - "Tomorrow will be a great day for getting things done!" or "At the end of the month you'll be inclined to go at things all guns blazing!" (I've just taken these from an online horoscope) take away some of the uncertainty and give the subject a sense of direction, purpose and expectation. The information doesn't have to be *accurate*; nor does it have to have a scientific basis. Any direction is better than none. Like nature, the human mind abhors a vacuum.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Oct 22, 2013 19:34:43 GMT -5
Sweet Jesus!
Wouldn't it be simpler for Bob to do your chart and settle it that way?
In the final analysis, isn't "personal meaning" the most relevant aspect of an astrological chart?
I had mine done decades ago and it's frighteningly accurate. Especially in those areas of private attributes that only I am aware exist within me. (Truthfully, it scared the bejeezus out of me at the time because really, do you want someone to know everything about you simply by doing some calculations?) Think about that for a moment, and you'll know exactly what I mean.
Anyhow the person who did it told me this and that was upcoming -- and believe me, none of what he said was pleasant and guess what --- he was right on every count. It was years of unrelenting stress.
Forewarned is forearmed as the idiom goes, and I managed to muddle through. Now had he told me my life would be a bowl of cherries...then, I'd say it was baloney. But he predicted I wouldn't be happy until I hit the progression charts he drew up. Which, incidentally he drew up without cost to me because he said he felt sorry for me. He assured me that I'd be happy decades down the line. Yep, he was right about that, too.
Thing is -- I have seldom met anyone who had their chart by someone who really knows what they're doing who didn't think it was spot on.
I am willing to take Bob's word in terms of his area of expertise. I'd imagine after all this time he'd have tossed everything out the door if he didn't believe it had merit. It would be pointless to devote a lifetime to something that wasn't getting you anywhere.
Honestly... sometimes skeptics get obsessed with proof...proof...proof. Proof of what? Proof of science only within the limitations of what is presently known. Wouldn't the key words be "presently known"?
Have Bob do your chart. Then let's see how skeptical you remain.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 22, 2013 20:20:46 GMT -5
Perhaps you misunderstood the question. I asked you for EVIDENCE that these researchers have done bad work. I did not ask for your unsubstantiated, unsupported opinion. As for your claim that "there isn't what I would judge a credible scientist among them", well take a look: The article "Evidence that the Lunar Cycle Influences Human Sleep" is from "Current Biology", a peer reviewed journal. The authors are affiliated with the following organizations: Centre for Chronobiology, Psychiatric Hospital of the University of Basel, 4012 Basel, Switzerland Solar Energy and Building Physics Laboratory, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland Centre for Sleep Medicine, Hirslanden Clinic, 8702 Zollikon, Switzerland Two other articles are from The Journal of Scientific Exploration, which is a peer reviewed journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration. BTW, the reviewers are not astrologers. They are scientists with Phd's in the physical sciences. Perhaps you got these confused with some other researchers. Sure it would. It would open the door. If SOME claims of astrologers are true, then the statement "Astrology has no validity" is false. After all, it only takes the existence of one white crow to conclusively prove that all crows are not black. Gauquelin found five white crows. Once the door is open, even a tiny bit, more investigation has to be done to find out if other claims are valid as well. Irrelevant. You have to demonstrate that the the conclusions of these researchers are not true. Otherwise all you have here is a False Analogy. Wrong. Unless, of course, you come up with solid refutations of all of that research work. So far you haven't. Yes, but so what? There was no known mechanism that explained motion before Newton or to explain the Michaelson-Morley experiment before Einstein came up with Special Relativity. Lack of explanation does not disprove that the phenomenon in question does not exist. For years scientists could not explain bumblebee flight with any known scientific laws. Did that mean that bumblebees could not fly? Wrong. Planetary positions can be observed as can events on Earth. From there it is a simple matter to test for correlations, as these researchers have done. Wrong again. The correlations can and have been measured. Since your above premises are wrong, your conclusion does not follow and is unjustified. Ad Hominem. That's the best one yet. You haven't explained how these forces manage to interfere with sleep. Well how do they? And why only with the Full Moon, a phenomenon that astrologers have noted for centuries? I have presented several research papers that show there is an effect. You will have to do a lot better than merely claiming that they do not show what they clearly do show. Once again Zak, your word alone is not enough. Really? What about the other researchers? Are you claiming, for example, that the researchers who found that the Full Moon affects sleep selected their own data? Even if you were to conclusively prove that Gauquelin was wrong (and you haven't) you still have not done anything to refute the conclusions of the other researchers (other than to slander them) . The data stands on its own merits. In fact, Gauquelin did make a mistake. He underestimated the effects. Perhaps you will now want to slander Dr. Ertel? Slander away. His results also stand on their own. There is no way areound it Zak. If you want to refute the data, you have to show that the data is wrong. Yes, no one can prove a negative. But you can prove a positive. And that is exactly what these researchers have done. It is not enough to say that you personally found the research shoddy and shabby. This you have not done. Without a valid demonstration, your claims here have no merit. LOL. I've known several therapists who use horoscopes to aid in diagnosis of patients. Two of them are clients. When I tell a client that I see better times coming in their horoscope, I personally believe it. I would never sink to the level of lying to them just so they will feel good for a short while. What you are advocating here is simply unethical. Bob Marks
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Oct 23, 2013 8:29:26 GMT -5
"Perhaps you got these confused with some other researchers."
No, I fully accept the validity of the research into lunar cycle influences on sleep. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with astrology.
"After all, it only takes the existence of one white crow to conclusively prove that all crows are not black."
On the other hand one swallow does not a summer make. And a drowning man will clutch at straws : )
"Wrong. Unless, of course, you come up with solid refutations of all of that research work. So far you haven't."
You mean apart from pointing out that the researchers are well-known crackpots, their work was carried out without controls or oversight, they selected their own data sets, their findings could not be replicated by independent scientists, and their results were never peer-reviewed? Well, I guess I'm just hard to convince. I tend only to take research seriously when it is carried out properly and when it produces results that can be substantiated and reproduced.
"I have presented several research papers that show there is an effect. You will have to do a lot better than merely claiming that they do not show what they clearly do show."
I could show you research papers by highly-qualified scientists showing just about any false proposition you care to name. Any homeopath enthusiast can show you research showing the efficacy of homeopathic medicine (and let me tell you, the evidence for homeopathy is a helluva lot stronger than the evidence for astrology, despite the FACT that homeopathy is complete nonsense). Or go and look at the abundance of scientific evidence making the (non-existent) correlation between stomach ulcers and stress. Or the statistical research proving the safety of thalidomide. Or the statistical evidence for the antidepressive effects of Prozac. And so on. In other words research doesn't mean much unless it can be substantiated, replicated and tested repeatedly in a laboratory environment. At a guess, I would say that at least 50% of all research findings are wrong.
"The data stands on its own merits. In fact, Gauquelin did make a mistake. He underestimated the effects. Perhaps you will now want to slander Dr. Ertel? Slander away. His results also stand on their own."
Ertel's results do NOT stand on their own. They have been refuted, as you are well aware. And I'm not going to get into that argument, because that's your "comfort zone" territory, arguing endlessly over whose interpretation of the data is correct. I have read all the claims and counter claims. Angels on the head of a pin stuff. In my estimation, the evidence that has been presented in support of astrology is so weak as to be reasonably dismissed. Again, if astrology were real, and involved real forces (or energies, or principles or whatever), there would be an abundance of evidence for it. According to astrologers, its effects are universal, like gravity. And yet you are unable to isolate a single instance of this force in a simple laboratory test? That's baloney. And Judge Judy would agree with me. "Yes, no one can prove a negative. But you can prove a positive. And that is exactly what these researchers have done."
No, they have not. They have *claimed* to have *found* a positive. That's a very different thing from finding proof.
"LOL. I've known several therapists who use horoscopes to aid in diagnosis of patients. Two of them are clients."
Well, there is no shortage of quacks in the world, is there?
"When I tell a client that I see better times coming in their horoscope, I personally believe it. I would never sink to the level of lying to them just so they will feel good for a short while. What you are advocating here is simply unethical."
Advocating? If I were advocating anything it would be to avoid astrologers like the plague! Awful people. I am simply explaining to you - since you don't seem to have any clue - how basic human psychology works. Why do you think millions of people read their horoscope every day? And when was the last time you read a horoscope that said "Tomorrow will be a really terrible day. You will feel miserable, and to make it worse you will receive bad news"?
And when they send a psychologist out to talk a would-be suicide in from the ledge of a skyscraper, what do you think they say? "Hey, things aren't as bad as they seem to you right now. Everything can be sorted out. Things will get better", or "Obviously your life is shit, and I don't see how it can get any better. You're probably right to want to jump" - ?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 23, 2013 13:42:08 GMT -5
Sure it does. Astrologers have known for millenia about the effects of the Full Moon. Not a refutation of what I said. Complex Question Fallacy and Argument by Slander. Two Errors in logic in one sentence. Congratulations. All of your claims here are just that. Unsubstantiated claims. You have not demonstrated even one of your charges. The research articles were published in peer-reviewed journals, so your claim that they were never peer reviewed is totally false. Bad logic. From the fact that you can find other unrelated false claims says nothing about these papers and claims are wrong. You actually have to look at the research and demonstrate why it is not true. So far you haven't done this. Really? Where? I notice you don't cite any references at all. Could that be because there aren't any and you are just making this up? This is the FACTS Board and you estimation counts for nothing unless it is backed up with evidence. So far, all youhave done is make unsubstantiated claims But positives can be checked. So far, no one has come up with a solid refutation. Argument by Slander. Well that's one response to give when you have no good arguments. Once again, Argument by Slander. You used to have an astrologer linked to your website. Is he still there? Once again, totally irrelevant. Most people are not standing on a ledge when they come for a reading. Bob Marks
|
|