Of all the woo beliefs, astrology seems the most persistent, the most resistant to evidence, and the most frustrating to debate with believers. I am reminded of Randi’s unsinkable rubber ducks - no amount of contrary evidence will ever un-convince the true believer in astrology. Why does this irrational nonsense continue to flourish despite the complete absurdity of its premises and lack of evidence for its efficacy? This persistent belief in the teeth of evidence would in itself make an excellent psychological study.
I can only explain it in terms of the power of confirmation bias and the forer effect.
Confirmation bias occurs when we selectively notice or focus upon evidence which tends to support the things we already believe or want to be true while ignoring that evidence which would serve to disconfirm those beliefs or ideas. Confirmation bias plays a stronger role when it comes to those beliefs which are based upon prejudice, faith, or tradition rather than on empirical evidence.
Confirmation bias is a godsend to astrology. The many different predictions of astrology, with its numerous aspects to consider, and the different possibly interpretations of the data mean it is child’s play to cherry pick predictions that match the actual characteristics of the person, and ignore those that don’t. No matter who the person is, there will be something in the horoscope that fits, and what doesn’t fit will be forgotten. Confirmation bias means the believers don’t even realize they have done this.
The Forer Effect refers to the tendency of people to rate sets of statements as highly accurate for them personally even though the statements could apply to many people.
Psychologist Bertram R. Forer found that people tend to accept vague and general personality descriptions as uniquely applicable to themselves without realizing that the same description could be applied to just about anyone.
These two biases (plus some others), convince people that astrology works. Couple this with a strange apparent need for it to be true, and you have your rubber ducks – they just keep bobbing back no matter what you say.
18 months ago I posted my Astrology Challenge. The premise was that we know how we know what we know. That is, if we look into any piece of scientific knowledge, we can always find out how the original people derived it. I asserted that astrology was not derived in the way that (for example) the speed of light was derived, it was just made-up fairy-tale fashion. And, as I wrote back then, if it was made up, it is highly unlikely to be true. At the very least, astrology’s doubtful provenance means we would need extraordinary evidence that it works, before we should accept it does. But we are only offered weak evidence. And when tested, astrology fails again and again. I challenged proponents of astrology to prove me wrong. The post is now closed, but recently I have received emails on this subject from someone calling himself Cassini. The following is his latest email, with my attempts to reason with him. I publish this as a response to Cassini, but also as a general response to astrology believers, in an attempt to get them to think honestly and critically about astrology. (I can only try.) All punctuation, spelling, capitalization and grammar are as in the original. Here goes:
But there are no hard and fast rules -you appear to be regarding astrology a a 'cookbook' its not like that - I will spell it out for you as you have not grasped the concept at all .
ASTROLOGY IS AN EVOLVING PROCESS ,THERE WAS NO ONE MOMENT WHEN SOMEONE CRIED' EUREKA THIS ASPECT MEANS THIS.OR THAT '.
OVER MANY THOUSANDS OF YEARS THE ASTROLOGERS OBSERVED AND NOTED THEIR OWN AND OTHERS PERSONAL EXPERIENCES AS TO EVENTS HAPPENING AROUND THEM .THEY OBSERVED THAT WHEN THESE EVENTS TOOK PLACE THE PLANETS/STARS IN THE HEAVENS WERE IN CERTAIN POSITIONS. OVER TIME A CORRELATION BETWEEN THESE PLANET AND STAR 'PATTERNS AND EVENTS ON EARTH THAT WERE THE SAME OR SIMILAR TO ONES THAT HAD GONE BEFORE UNDER THE SAME PLANATARY PATTERNS WERE NOTED - THIS IS HOW ASTROLOGY EVOLVED AND IS STILL EVOLVING..
But where was this process “noted”? It’s a nice myth, but you don’t have a shred of evidence that astrology evolved this way. None. The above is just your assumption – you cannot show me any data to support this claim of how the rules of astrology came about. Consequently we cannot examine the process, the data you say were used, to determine if the correct conclusions were reached. In reality, the process you say occurred is absurd. It’s absolutely absurd to suppose, without one shred of evidence, that all the detailed rules of astrology were derived from unbiased observation of hundreds of thousands of events correlated to astrological positions.
You have to keep an open mind in all things
So do you. Is your mind open enough to admit the possibility that astrology doesn’t work, that you have been fooled? If not, you are the closed minded one.
Your argument is a fallacious appeal to be open minded. An open mind is open to all ideas, but it must be open to the possibility that the idea could be true or false. It is not closed-minded to reject claims that make no sense, but if you can’t accept the possibility that astrology might be false, then you are the closed minded one. So please, examine with an open mind, these tests that astrology failed. Tell me honestly how astrology could be real if the expert astrologers recommended by the National Council for Geocosmic Research couldn’t do better than chance in the test they designed themselves?
-realise that astrology is not an exact science in the way you obviously think it is .
I don’t think astrology is an exact science, or even any kind of science. What I have said is that astrology fails when tested scientifically – ie using a double-blind protocol to control for confirmation bias and the forer effect. You appear to be agreeing with me here by saying that astrology cannot be shown to be real using science. This is just an appeal to other ways of knowing – you are claiming there are valid ways of knowing things other than the scientific method. Science has proved to be the most reliable method we know for evaluating claims and figuring out how the universe works – arguably the only reliable method. If you claim there is a better method, it is up to you to explain your better method and justify how it is better – something you haven’t done.
It is not black and white but perceived by the individual who is experiencing a particular transit to his natal chart from his own point of view ,his own life experience .ASTROLOGY doesn't state this will DEFINITELY happen when a certain transit is affecting your chart (in the way that you can reproduce a scientific experiment the same results occurring again and again) What it does do is show you the timings when you MAY experience some of the conflicts , good things , unexpected events that life may throw at you
How convenient to be able to say the predicted things may or may not occur. The way you have described it makes astrology unfalsifiable – according to you it works no matter whether it passes or fails a test. Answer me this please – are the predicted events more likely to happen than pure chance? If you answer yes, then how do you explain the fact that when tested, astrology doesn’t perform better than pure chance? If you answer no – astrology is no better than chance – then if you still insist that astrology “works”, precisely what is your definition of “works”?
How they are experienced by you as an individual is unknown until they occur
Precisely – the predictions of astrology only become apparent after the thing astrology is supposed to predict, has occurred. And a prediction that is only known after the predicted thing has occurred, is a pretty useless prediction. In fact, it is not a prediction. You are fitting what happened after the fact, to some aspect of the horoscope. That’s like shooting a load of arrows at the wall and then drawing the target where most of the arrows hit.
but they will correlate with the meaning attributed to the planatary aspect taking place.
Except the evidence is that it won’t correlate, unless you know in advance what the person’s horoscope is, and therefore you know what to look for. Tell me, why is it that when astrologers try to do this blind, they perform no better than chance?
This meaning as I stated above is the result of millennia of thought and observation by astrologers –the subject is too big to compartmentalize and decimate in the way you are trying to do it .
Then it is too big to have been done at all, ever. Don’t you see this? If you can’t demonstrate now that astrology works, using any kind of test, then it would have been impossible to do in the first place, impossible for those detailed rules to have been worked out. How do you think the originators of astrology did this, and managed to come up with all the detailed rules the way you claim they did, if the subject is too big to compartmentaliz this way?
Im a computer programmer with a maths degree, not some air head new age type .I have a good understanding of scientific principles but I love astrology because it WORKS .
Sorry Cassini but you have demonstrated you have a very poor grasp of scientific principles and the scientific method. You have invented an absurd process that you think the ancients adopted to derive the rules of astrology, and yet you think modern science is incapable of replicating this process. You do not understand the biases that are fooling you, or that scientists must control for those biases when performing experiments. You do not understand the principle of falsification that guides the scientific method. You think it is beyond the wit of humans to compare the predictions of astrology with what actually transpires. It is not. It has been done and astrology doesn’t work. Perversely, you ignore these studies because you just “know” astrology works. You have no interest in testing astrology to see if it could be proven wrong. Your reasoning is totally contrary to any scientific principle.
Im sure your an Earth sign !!
I’m sure I’m not: I’m Libra which is an air sign. However, I’m equally sure you will now be able to fit some aspect of my personality to that sign, as you would whatever my sign was. And that is why you think astrology works – it is so vague, and there are so many possible combinations of planetary aspects, that you can always find something to fit and ignore what doesn’t.
Cassini, it is a sign of intellectual honesty to answer reasonable questions arising out of what you have written. The following is a list of questions that have arisen from your email:
Where is the evidence the rules of astrology were derived in the way you claim?How could the ancients have figured out all the rules of astrology, if astrology really is too big to compartmentalize this way?Are you open minded enough to admit that astrology might not work? What evidence, if any, hypothetically, could ever convince you that astrology does not work?Do you understand that you may be influenced by confirmation bias and the forer effect. If not, why not? If so, do you accept that you could be mistaken when you say “astrology works”?What other method could be used to evaluate the accuracy of astrology, if the scientific method is inadequate?Are the predictions of astrology more likely to happen than pure chance?If the answer to the above question is “yes”, then how do you explain the fact that when tested astrology doesn’t perform better than pure chance?If you answer “no” – astrology is correct no better than chance – in what way are you claiming astrology “works”?
The comments are open below – please use them to answer the questions. Don’t be a rubber duck. If you answer the questions honestly you might learn something about what is really behind astrology.
September 28, 2006 – Edited to add:
The above questions were specifically for Cassini – they arose directly from what he had written. It is clear now that Cassini is not going to even consider these questions, and so I decided to amend this post to leave just one question for astrology proponents to consider. Here it is.
Question for astrology proponents
Look at my tests of astrology summary. Specifically read my summary of one of the tests written up by Shawn Carlson in Nature in 1985:
Test #2: 116 people completed California Personality Index (CPI) surveys and provided natal data (date, time and place of birth). One set of natal data and the results of three personality surveys (one of which was for the same person as the natal data) were given to an astrologer who was to interpret the natal data and determine which of the three CPI results belonged to the same subject as the natal data.
The astrologers chose the correct CPI in only 40 of the 116 cases. This is the exact success rate expected for random chance. The astrologers predicted that they would select the correct CPI profiles in more that 50 per cent of the trials.
Here is the question: why did the astrologers perform no better than random chance?
The comments are open for your answers.
Some advice. Don’t tell me astrology can’t be tested this way, or that astrology is somehow beyond the abilities of science to measure, unless you can explain exactly why this specific test is unsuitable as a means of testing astrology. Don’t reply that I need to study astrology more, or with a list of books I need to read. And above all, don’t reply that I need to approach astrology with an open mind, unless you can demonstrate you have a mind open enough to consider the obvious answer to the question – namely that astrology is nonsense. Ignore this advice and you will be ridiculed. For bonus points you could also tell me (with evidence please) how astrology was derived – although I won’t be holding my breath.
Over to you – answer the simple question.
Gah! I'm ashamed for my field that such mushy thinking survived his math education.
Posted by: Davis | September 17, 2006 at 11:11 PM
Let's see if this can get any further than the last thread!
Although I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: Big Al | September 18, 2006 at 12:20 AM
What a profound insight: when things happen, the planets tend to be in certain positions. When things happen, the traffic in the street also happens to be in certain positions. They are also closer and therefore their woo-waves have more effect than massively distant astronomical objects. I think I'll develop a "science" of trafficology, with signs like "Ford" and "BMW" but, of course, it will have to change every time predictions fail to fit with facts (though it's obvious the facts are wrong, not the predictions).
I'd hate to see the sloppy sort of spaghetti code this sort of attitude applied to programming would produce.
Posted by: EoR | September 18, 2006 at 03:37 AM
He could very well be lying about his work and his education, just to make himself look good (in fact, I struggled with woo when I was a kid because I failed to understand this character of human nature).
Though, then again, he could be a competent mathematician and computer programmer, and have a separate compartment in his mind where astrology is free to roam un-compartmentalized...
Posted by: valhar2000 | September 18, 2006 at 04:40 AM
"I'd hate to see the sloppy sort of spaghetti code this sort of attitude applied to programming would produce."
Whoa, that's scary.
for ($i = 0; $i < 10; $i++) {
$r = int rand(10);
if ($i == $r) { print "match!"; }
else { $i = $r ; print "match!"; }
}
Posted by: Dave | September 18, 2006 at 05:58 AM
Sorry, Dave, your "else" string should be the more representative "Well, look, it just works, OK?" ;)
I love the idea that astrology arose by some diligent Sumerian scribe waiting for things to happen and then noting the relative positions of stars and planets when they did.
That rather lets out events that happened during the day, I guess.
Also, are the woos saying that when an ancient Sumerian (or whoever) acted in a certain way, these said scribes found out exactly when they were born (to the minute), worked out exactly where the stars and planets were on that day/hour/minute and found correlation with his notes on the behaviour of other people who just happened to be born at a similar celestial arrangement?
How did that get started? Did some bored ancient Babylonian wake up some morning (perhaps after his baby done left him) and decide to start assessing the planetary/stellar positions of newborns (presumably ones born during the day!), just in case the data might come in handy when they were older? Then, when he's collated thousands of data points and the babies have grown up to reveal their personalities, lo and behold!
He can group them all together according to when given splotches moving the sky happened to be passing through one of twelve arbitrarily-connected groups of other splotches in the sky! At night, of course.
Or did it actually wait until proto-astronomers happened to have given the arbitrarily-connected groups of splotches arbitrary names, along with the moving splotches?
Even so, how did he manage to take account of the effect of thousands of years of stellar movement on these new constellations?
What, you mean to say he didn't?
Posted by: Big Al | September 18, 2006 at 07:54 AM
BigAl
Re: Also, are the woos saying that when an ancient Sumerian (or whoever) acted in a certain way, these said scribes found out exactly when they were born (to the minute), worked out exactly where the stars and planets were on that day/hour/minute and found correlation with his notes on the behaviour of other people who just happened to be born at a similar celestial arrangement?
You are absolutely right – and that is even more absurd that what Cassini was proposing, but it is what would have had to have happened.
I don’t think Cassini understands astrology as well as he thinks he does – what he was proposing would be inconsistent with the rules of astrology.
Posted by: Skeptico | September 18, 2006 at 10:51 AM
How did the ancients see all the planets?
Posted by: L6 | September 18, 2006 at 11:30 AM
They didn't. In theory, as new planets have been discovered in modern times, we should be able to see precisely how astrologers use this new data to refine their predictive methods. Instead, as the recent article posted here on Eris/Xena shows, even as the names of astronomical objects change it is quite obvious that astrologers are literally making it up as they go along.
Posted by: Chayanov | September 18, 2006 at 11:35 AM
In the intrest of playing a mild devil's advocate, I've actually met a few astrologers (definitely the minority in my experience) who have studied actual astronomy pretty heavily (one was a professor on the topic) and do adjust their woo methods according to new info. Apparently they are considered radical by their woo peers. Which I find hilarious. I should also note that all three people I am thinking of don't really believe in the predicting of the future aspect of astrology but focus on the personality trait angle instead. They were interesting and rational people to converse with. Nifty. [/devil's advocate]
Posted by: mouse | September 18, 2006 at 12:14 PM
Well, Cassini replied to me direct by email. For some reason he wouldn’t comment here. The following in bold is his email, with my responses:
Re: Thank you for replying and taking an interest in astrology - So your sign is Libra - there is hope for you yet as you actually know your star sign !!!
Of course I know it. I have studied astrology in some depth: that’s how I know it is bunk.
Re: Im a Libra too ! . You are trying to debunk something that can never be 'proved' in the way you wish it to be proved . Stop limiting your thinking its far to narrow - expand it to take in the possibility that there are things that cant be explained fully by science . Can science define the human soul ? I think not !!
Oh boy – appeal to other ways of knowing and appeal to be open minded. I dealt with both of these in my post. What a narrow-minded rubber duck – he just ignores what I wrote and replies as though I had not covered these already.
Re: I know astrology 'works' because I use it daily to assist me in my understanding of human nature ,it is a very useful tool in the work place a wonderful way of comprehending human motivation .
He’s ignored everything I wrote about confirmation bias and the forer effect. Again – a narrow-minded rubber duck.
Re: But I digress - Astrology was around a very long time before you were born and will be around a very long time after you die.
Ah, at least we have a new fallacy: an Appeal to Tradition:
Re: It is a good thing that you have a questioning mind ,read as much as you can on the subject there are many good books out there.Then use it yourself see how it is working in your life, how you are using the energies in your own natal chart . Most of all keep an open mind !
I have an open mind Cassini – it is yours that is closed. Too closed to even examine the points I made, too closed to consider the questions. A closed mind of someone scared to consider the possibility that his favorite bit of woo might not be real. Disappointing, but in retrospect, not surprising. Open your mind, Cassini, and answer the questions:
Answer the questions.
Posted by: Skeptico | September 18, 2006 at 05:34 PM
Um, is it only me that noticed that the description of how astrology was supposedly developed (observatiuon, correlation, testing...) sounds remarkably like the scientific method? Odd that it then "can never be 'proved' in the way you wish it to be proved"...
Posted by: outeast | September 19, 2006 at 04:31 AM
Mouse, you posted In the intrest of playing a mild devil's advocate, I've actually met a few astrologers (definitely the minority in my experience) who have studied actual astronomy pretty heavily (one was a professor on the topic) and do adjust their woo methods according to new info.
I think the bottom line with regard to this is that ancient astrologers weren't - couldn't be - taking all the planetary variables into account. OK, so Pluto is now regarded as pretty small fry, but Uranus and Neptune are huge.
Presumably, lacking this knowledge would render any attempt at accurate astrological correlation impossible (assuming it was possible in the first place).
Yet we're being asked to believe that the ancient astrologers, with their incomplete data on cosmic entities, found such stunning correlation that they founded a whole new discipline that lasts to this day!
Or are we asked to believe that ancient horoscopes were stunningly accurate, but modern ones are really stunningly accurate?
And yet, although they're so really stunningly accurate, nobody can tell us how they work, or even prove to us that they do work!
As far as I can see, we have two possibilities:
Astrology is basically simple and very accurate - however, nobody can tell us how to do it or give plausible, verifiable examples of its accuracy.
Astrology is frighteningly complex and inaccessible to the layman. It takes years of study and deep calculation to come up with valid predictions - however, this rather rules out the "observant shaman" example proffered by Cassini. The supposedly ancient originator of astrology had to have some reason to start logging stellar and planetary positions.
OK, any interested astrologers out there: I was born at 10:08 on Tuesday, November 13, 1962 in St.Albans, Hertfordshire, England. I can supply other details if required.
If you're willing to put your craft on the line, please tell me something specific about myself, based solely on that info. I am willing and, indeed, eager to be convinced.
Feel free to stun me!
Posted by: Big Al | September 19, 2006 at 06:06 AM
I was born at 10:08 on Tuesday, November 13, 1962 in St.Albans, Hertfordshire, England. I can supply other details if required.
If you're willing to put your craft on the line, please tell me something specific about myself, based solely on that info.
Your parents are rather pedantic about dates and times?
Posted by: Corkscrew | September 19, 2006 at 09:53 AM
No, the midwife who delivered me was!
I just thought that an exact "science" like astrology would need that sort of level of accuracy to work its predictive miracles.
On the other hand, what is the moment of birth? When the contractions start? When the baby's head emerges? When its feet emerge? When the umbilical's cut?
Posted by: Big Al | September 19, 2006 at 10:46 AM
Not the correct thread to post this in, but in one of your previous astrology threads, I think the one you linked to in this thread, someone had suggested getting a chart from astro.com which they had said was simply the best astrology site out there; the most accurate and so forth. Well, comments were closed on the thread, so I couldn't reply when I did; I hope you don't mind me commenting in this thread about it.
I'd say that *maybe* half of it could apply to me. Not very accurate at all. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it sounds like a complete chance result, as most of it was binary statements ("you are/tend to/like/are attracted to such and such"; either yes I do, or no I don't).
Interestingly, the Personal Portrait has this as the second paragraph (emphasis added):
Sounds to me like an admission right up front that it's BS. "This might be accurate, but it could be totally wrong, too!" Here's a couple choice quotes: No way!!! I bet that doesn't apply to anyone else at all! How specific! Erm, no, I tend to not interfere. I'd strongly disagree with that one. I would agree with the first half, but the second? Way off. This one isn't even out of bounds; it's left the golf course entirely.
I'd like to give the reverse of Big Al's challenge for astrologers. Can you figure out what sign I am from those quotes and my responses? You've got a 1 in 12 shot; pretty decent odds.
Posted by: Nes | September 19, 2006 at 11:17 AM
Aquarius.
Posted by: L6 | September 19, 2006 at 12:09 PM
Nope.
Skeptico, would you mind deleting that post? I think it would make more sense to put it on my blog instead. I forget that I have it sometimes.
Posted by: Nes | September 19, 2006 at 04:49 PM
Spot-on Skeptico! I find it endlessly fascinating that while I don't believe in astrology, I still ask people what their sign is at some point in the "getting to know each other" stage. The good news, is that I promptly forget, and don't hold the information for or against the person.
Posted by: famjaztique | September 19, 2006 at 09:37 PM
In discussions about astrrology, I usually say "I don't believe in astrology - I guess that's a typical Scorpio trait."
Posted by: Big Al | September 20, 2006 at 01:07 AM
Though, then again, he could be a competent mathematician and computer programmer, and have a separate compartment in his mind where astrology is free to roam un-compartmentalized...
This is kind of off topic, and I know that many people tend to behave this way, but have pscyhologists done any experiments to confirm this?
I'm having a debate with a friend and would like to know.
Thanks!
Posted by: Belathor | September 20, 2006 at 02:01 PM
Well, Nes, we only have another signs 11 to go! Isn't it amazing that no astrologer’s got back here to tell us where our questions have gone wrong?
You didn’t tell me what you like for breakfast! Oh… OK, so you did…
Well, you didn’t indicate what sort of car you drive… all right, scratch that.
Ah ha! You never said what side of bed you normally get out of! See? We astrologers need important information that you so-called ‘scientific types’ can’t guess at! Astrology is older than your limited know-everything logic, so pooh to you!
What? The left side? Of course! What do you mean, only because your bedroom’s wall’s on your right? I knew that!
Right… um… what about your collar size…?
Posted by: Big Al | September 20, 2006 at 03:28 PM
I realize this sounds a bit off topic, but trust me it isn't... Have I mentioned recently how much I lurve you guys (in that generic internet reading is often fantabulously entertaining sort of way)?
Big Al....all points taken. I was just pointing out a few contrary peeps I know of...ie people of woo who seem to go about it in a different way. Since I like to play "what if" I have a few personal theories on how the shaman's got it all laid out. Of course those imaginary hypotheticals of mine are assuming there is any validity to astrology, which if it turns out in the end there is, I sincerely doubt it will be anything like what the woosters currently think it is (a statement I make about all religions as well). That would be my ignostic streak showing - like an agnostic whith a "who really cares" twist for those unfamiliar with the term.
And finally Nes, first I want to clarify that I'm not a believer, just a person whose own astrological chart does happen to match my personality (to the point that I must be a freakish stastistical anomoly, kind of amusing). I know plenty (ie most) who don't.
That said, mind if I take a stab at guessing? I find this particular woo fascinating even if I don't believe...it's more fun than the woo I was raised with (white rascist southern baptists in the midwest...enough said).
Right. The guessing. My first guess would be Cancer...second would be Pisces. They are both "water signs" and supposed to be in tune with all the mystical mumbo jumbo but Cancers are supposedly more prone to the interfering and what not. Scorpio is water also but doesn't fit the profile that the site gave you. They say that your moon and rising are really strong personality points as well so the site may be going by those as for those descriptions you copied over (or maybe one of the other planets or some such).
My understanding is that a lot of it is intuitive (ie BS) and that planet/house indicators with opposing traits will end up cancelling each other out (again, ie BS) so some of the interpretations are a little weird to "laymen. " Have I said BS recently? Oh good.
That astronomy professor I mentioned up thread said that's part of why he doesn't believe in using astrology to predict events but does think there may be something to some of the personality trait stuff. Then he got into some quantum mechanics (I think...I'm an actor so it's out of my field of expertise) that was way over my head (singularities with origins near other planets affecting brain chemistry was his theory) and I kind of lost the train of conversation.
So how was my guessing? Only 9 more signs to go for the "true believers" to pick from.
Posted by: mouse | September 20, 2006 at 09:53 PM
singularities with origins near other planets affecting brain chemistry was his theory...
LOL! You do meet some interesting woosters, mouse! The term "singularity" usually means a black hole. And your theorising friend is basically talking total bollocks, as I'm sure you guessed!
Posted by: Big Al | September 21, 2006 at 01:40 AM
Oh I know it. I think he knows it too but enjoys playing what if as much as I do (I lurve me some implausible science fiction novels). To be fair I could be remembering the vocabulary he used incorrectly. I think the gist was subatomic particles (or at least smaller than microscopic) wafting from planetary bodies. Honestly, my sobriety at the time was questionable so it's all a bit of a blur. It was a fun conversation with someone I only met once a million years ago.
And I'd like to apologize for the throughly rambly nature of my previous post. Again with the questionable sobriety (back pain does have it's upside) and I tend to think in parenthetical tangents and ellipses. It's actually easier to read than listen to. Go figure.
Posted by: Mouse | September 21, 2006 at 02:10 AM
This is long, but please humor me.
Last night I was informed by a friend of mine (who had been told this by a professional astrologer) that, according to the charts, Friday, September 21, at 7:05pm (CT) would be the perfect time for conducting prosperity rituals. Therefore I should at least burn a green candle at that time. Where to begin with all this nonsense?
Okay, so I get it that green candle = money (but only if the country you live in uses green money, I guess. Wouldn't a gold candle be better?), but then if green candle = money, wouldn't burning candle = burning money? How do I become prosperous by burning money? When I ask such questions I'm told that I'm too literal and that it's all a big metaphor.
But if it's nothing but metaphor, why is the date and time so specific? Why not late in the week or early in the weekend? What happens at 7:04 or 7:15? If it's just metaphor, what are the charts for? Indeed, what charts are we talking about? What is the astrologer looking for? How is this information being interpreted? All questions that go unanswered and evaded (as this site has proven time and time again).
Another evaded question is, if the time for ritual is so specific why isn't the turn-around time given? If I burn that candle, how long do I wait for prosperity to come my way? 1 hour? 1 week? Where's the information on that?
I know people who have conducted prosperity rituals, then 3 days later when they get their paycheck (which comes every 2 weeks from the job they've worked for the past 8 years), they credit the ritual. What about all the times they got paid when they didn't perform the ritual? And we're back to those unsinkable rubber ducks.
It's faith, it's belief, it's wrapped up as part of their religion. Fine. But then they should quit acting like astrology is internally consistent, rational, and a scientific process. It's not. Scientists will always be able to show you how they arrived at their results. You may not understand the math or the theory involved, but it's all there for you to follow.
Astrologers do not do that. They can't do it because they're just making it up. If they would just admit that I wouldn't care. They could call it "an intuitive process" if they want but stop acting like it's legitimate research. Stop appealing to other ways of knowing. Stop insisting that scientists take them seriously. Go burn a candle already.
Posted by: Chayanov | September 21, 2006 at 09:15 AM
Great post.
I just wanted to note that sites such as astro.com are completely testable. (Could make for a nice blog entry). Let me propose a design. You could take, say, 20 volunteers, and get their dates of birth. Then you could get 20 readings from astro.com, and number them 1 through 20. You then write a file that matches names with reading number. For trust purposes, you password encrypt the file and make it available for download. Anonymous numbered readings are made available publicly. Afterwards, you ask volunteers to either guess the best reading or rate the readings (haven't worked out the math for best methodology). After the guesses are in, you can release the encrypted file's password.
Posted by: Joseph | September 21, 2006 at 11:06 AM
Hey, not too bad Mouse; Cancer was indeed the sign that went one or two of those quotes. I had to edit one with [I have] to hide the mention of Cancer. But it's not my actual sign, it was related in some way or another. I won't even pretend to understand how, though! I'd mention what the relationship was, but that might actually give away my sign. I don't know, as I don't know how they figure out how it was related.
Posted by: Nes | September 21, 2006 at 01:58 PM
I'm not a woo-slinger, but my ex-wife was, so let me have a turn. By the way, you missed the third leg of the triangle. Together with Confirmation Bias and the Forer Effect you skipped psychology. Keep in mind that until very recently, all astrological consults were done in person. A very great part of the astrologer's (tarot card reader, palmist, etc) skill was to read the subject properly so as to turn the reading to the subject's interests. This is fascinating to watch in action.
The other point being passed over was that astronomy was, indeed, cutting-edge science: In 300 AD. There is more than sufficient surviving literature to support Cassini's contention that astrology grew out of centuries of observation. The fact that it was all driven by Confirmation Bias doesn't change that it was an attempt to better understand the universe based upon observation and noting patterns.
Also keep in mind that astrology has been protected through most of its history by the fact that natal charts (one's "star sign") have not been very important except for princes. After all, for the better part of history, most people did not know the day of their birth, much less the time. Rather, the focus has been on "horary astrology," ie when is the ideal time to undertake an important task. Think Nancy Reagan here. If the astrologer is merely chosing the appropos time for a given endeavor, the confirmation bias is ratcheted way up, as most people do not set out to fail.
So I understand where Cassini is coming from. But he's a couple of millenia behind the times.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 21, 2006 at 05:25 PM
Well of course I guessed well Nes. I'm a pisces and prone to understanding mystic crap.
At least I crack myself up.
Posted by: mouse | September 21, 2006 at 05:39 PM
Skeptico replies to kehrsam
Good point about the personal consultations – add cold reading to the reasons people think astrology works.
Re: There is more than sufficient surviving literature to support Cassini's contention that astrology grew out of centuries of observation.
Where can I see this? Clearly the astronomical data were derived this way, and much of it is extant (eg Galileo’s observations of Venus). But astrological data – the detailed rules of astrology? Where can I see the astrological equivalent of how Galileo derived that the planets orbit the Sun and not the Earth?
Where is the data that shows how they derived that Librans can’t make decisions, or that Virgos are neat and tidy, or that Saturn conjunct the Moon in the Fourth House indicates a difficult early life and the likelihood of a parent who was not very nurturing? Where is all that?
Posted by: Skeptico | September 21, 2006 at 05:54 PM
In my local pub a few years ago, I pretended I could read palms. People who'd known me for years didn't find it strange that I'd never mentioned this before.
I started to do a few people, and quite a crowd gathered round. People were wide-eyed at my accuracy. Some of my "hits" involved the fact that I actually knew some of the people quite well; things like "Let me see... you have two kids" were counted as eerily obtained info, although if I'd actually named the kids it might have spoiled the effect!
In the end, I fessed up that I was reading the people, not their palms, and a few wouldn't believe me! They insisted I must have some magical power, even if I wasn't aware of it!
Posted by: Big Al | September 22, 2006 at 12:40 AM
In my local pub a few years ago, I pretended I could read palms. People who'd known me for years didn't find it strange that I'd never mentioned this before.
I started to do a few people, and quite a crowd gathered round. People were wide-eyed at my accuracy. Some of my "hits" involved the fact that I actually knew some of the people quite well; things like "Let me see... you have two kids" were counted as eerily obtained info, although if I'd actually named the kids it might have spoiled the effect!
In the end, I fessed up that I was reading the people, not their palms, and a few wouldn't believe me! They insisted I must have some magical power, even if I wasn't aware of it!
Posted by: Big Al | September 22, 2006 at 12:40 AM
I also developed the power to post twice!
Posted by: Big Al | September 22, 2006 at 12:41 AM
Skeptico: I didn't say the evidence led directly to the silly predictions of modern astrology; I claimed that there was evidence of observations accreted over time. Some of the hermetic literature from ancient times has survived; much of it has not. But there is no doubt that there was an ongoing body of work updated over time. Consult any good social history of the ancient world. Robin Lane Fox' Pagans and Christians has an excellent discussion of ancient "technologies" such as this.
In the same way, ancients recorded spellcasting technology and dream interpretations and developed them over time. Although they actually led to something useful, the Hippocratic Books can be thrown into the same class; they were no more or less scientific.
None of this has much of anything to do with the claims Cassini is making about modern astrology. But he is correct to claim that astrology started out as a "science" in the sense that it involved observations over time.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 22, 2006 at 01:49 AM
But the “science” part – observations over time - refers to what we now call astronomy. Nowhere was it “observed” that Saturn conjunct the Moon in the Fourth House indicates a difficult early life and the likelihood of a parent who was not very nurturing.
Posted by: Skeptico | September 22, 2006 at 07:19 AM
Cassini replied again by email. His comments below in bold:
Re: No not 'closed' minded at all I actually came to the subject with a skeptical but open mind , in all my years of experience with astrology ( Im 45 by the way) I have come to the conclusion that it does work,
But you won’t tell us how you square that with the fact that astrology fails test after test. You have fooled yourself. Saying “I have come to the conclusion that it does work” despite all the evidence to the contrary is idiotic. You are closed minded – you won’t even consider, even hypothetically, my question “What evidence, if any, hypothetically, could ever convince you that astrology does not work?”
Re: I use it as a psychological tool its a wonderful way to understand human nature .Remember Jung used astrology well in his psychiatric practice and Copernicus, Isaac Newton and Einstein are just three great thinkers that gave it credence. If you read up on the history of it you will discover many fascinating facts about the great scientific minds in history that used astrology .
Appeal to authority logical fallacy. Who cares if Newton was a believer? Irrelevant.
Re: Because of the esoteric nature of the subject and as you are well aware even astrologers disagree amongst themselves about the way it should be 'interpreted',
Very convenient – if one interpretation doesn’t fit, try another. And another. Until something happens to fit. Yes, they all come up with different answers. Trouble is, they’re all wrong.
Re: I am of the opinion that 'scientific proof' in the way you are seeking it is like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack of contradictions and myth .
Straw Man: I am not looking for “scientific proof”. Where have I ever used the word “proof”? I am looking for evidence. But the evidence shows it doesn’t work. You are just too closed-minded to look at it.
Re: Therefore to answer any questions you should look for the truth of astrology literally 'in yourself ' study your own chart see what it reveals about you.Thats why I say keep an open mind because until you yourself 'delve' deeply into astrology to see how it is working in your life to dismiss it as unproved rubbish is an unscientific and rather childish approach.
Childish, because the evidence shows it doesn’t work? That’s a new one. Looking for evidence is “childish”. This is just another appeal to other ways of knowing. You are the childish one.
Re: May I suggest a good starting point is The Fated Sky: Astrology in History by Benson Brobick !
You can suggest all you want. I’ve already read numerous astrology books, and I’m not going to take notice of anything else you write until you ANSWER THE QUESTIONS:
Why are you so scared of these questions?
Posted by: Skeptico | September 22, 2006 at 09:52 AM
Why are you so scared of these questions? (Skeptico)
Because answering them would be opening up the possibility that he might be wrong, and that is what he is really afraid of. He's afraid of a world where he can be fooled by the confirmation bias, where he's been spouting off unconfirmed (and unconfirmable) rubbish as facts, and where he's believed for most of his life in something that's untrue.
When you look at it that way, you can almost sympathize with these woos; they're just sticking to their woo out of fear. (Of course, this doesn't apply to those who have never heard skeptical arguments against their brand of woo.)
Posted by: Infophile | September 22, 2006 at 11:45 AM
RE: Calling someone childish
This has gained a rather disturbing popularity. Anytime you disagree with someone's actions, opinions, or beliefs you can call them childish and this is apprently supposed to be some sort of supreme insult. I know far too many Pagans and Buddhists who use it to describe Christians, mainstream Americans, and scientists pretty much indiscriminantly.
For example, Pagans call Christians childish because Christians worship an authoritarian father figure. Pagans see nothing odd about how they worship an earth mother figure.
What's even more peculiar is that these groups have taken to calling themselves childlike as some sort of supreme compliment.
If you're childlike, you have all the wonder, awe, and creativity of children. If you're childish, you pout and throw tantrums, holding your fingers in your ears and shouting "I don't hear you" over and over.
Personally, I think the whole thing is pretty childish.
Posted by: Chayanov | September 22, 2006 at 01:42 PM
Re: Chayanov's comments on "childishness"
You've got that right. Although I get a great deal of enjoyment out of imagining, say, Loosers (9/11 conspiracy nuts from Loose Change) as teenage pseudo-gothlings working at McDonalds, saying or doing anything for attention and to feel special, I avoid saying it, sticking to pointing out the absurdities of their hypotheses.
Even if the woo I'm arguing with really qualifies as "childish," it's still irrelevant to the arguments they make: Fallacious arguments are fallacious arguments.
Posted by: BronzeDog | September 22, 2006 at 03:51 PM
What's really childish is to believe something based only on hearsay and without any evidence.
Anyone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?
Posted by: Big Al | September 22, 2006 at 04:59 PM
Just FYI, Cassini replied with more of the same drivel. I’m not going to waste time reproducing it and debunking it line-by-line again. It could easily have been written by taking his previous emails and rearranging the word order – there was nothing new.
Cassini is the quintessential rubber duck – no matter how many times I refute an argument he bounces back with the exact same thing as before, as if I had never already written the rebuttal. And he will not look at the questions that arose from what he wrote. He is completely impervious to contrary evidence or logic – nothing ever penetrates the wall of insulation that protects his belief in his precious magic pictures-in-the-sky-fortune-telling system. Nothing! As I wrote before, this persistent belief in the teeth of evidence would in itself make an excellent psychological study. But that’s for someone else, not me.
I reproduce the questions again, with a number 9 added (since Cassini apparently thinks I need “proof” of astrology). Answer the questions:
Last chance.
Posted by: Skeptico | September 24, 2006 at 08:01 AM
Hello.
I am a rational and pragmatic person who has complete faith in science, and next to none in religion or any other number of "woo" subjects as you folks call them, yet at the same time, I manage to find something less than random in the personality traits of individuals as correlated to the positions of the planets at the time of their birth. Additionally, in daily life, I witness correlations between the cycles of the solar system and the events of life on Earth.
I believe I can offer you some more meaningful debate than 'Cassini' who seems rather incoherent, as do many of the skeptics out there who dismiss astrology out of hand with all the intellectual curiosity of a housewife reading her horoscope. if you are truly a skeptic, (as I consider myself to be!) than you will undoubtedly rub your hands with glee at the prospect of finding a proponent of astrology who claims to be rational. I'm up for the game.
The key word here is correlation. I certainly don't believe that the planets "cause" things to happen on Earth. (apart from their verifiable physical influences of course.) I don't envision some system of proactive deified orbs. Yet the entire universe functions in cycles, and the earth is certainly no exception. There are many, many natural cycles which affect life on earth; I couldnt list a fraction of them. The lunar cycle, the solar radiation cycle, el nino, the glaciation cycle, insect breeding patterns, infintely complex weather patterns, the precession of the equinoxes... these are all cycles which have a very definite influence on our bodies and lives, and they all follow steady rhythms. At the same time, the planets circle the sun, and their motion to we on Earth is also steady. I envision the planetary motions, hence astrology, as a clock by which to monitor the cycles of life, including those of which we are not yet aware. I have no difficulty believing that there could be a correlation between these cycles, even if it is only to measure the passing of time.
Here's a little analogy:
Every day at 6am the church bells ring.
Across town, at the same time every day, a guy named jim gets up and he immediately takes a piss. Thats just his natural rhythm, he gets up around 6am as he always has, and he immediately empties his bladder. And the church bells always ring at 6am, as they have since the church was built 500 years ago. Now if you were an observer watching jim for 50 years, you would not be foolish to make a correlation between the sound of the church bells in the morning and the flush of Jim's toilet. The two events do not have a causal relationship, yet they have a relationship none the less, and one could tell you information about the other.
I am aware of the "Confirmation Bias" phemomena, and you will undoubtedly be interested to hear that I have caught myself exhibiting it when reading astrological charts. Immediately after seeing the positions of the planets in a persons chart, I start trying to understand them according to the patterns and characteristics I've come to accept from years of observation. On several occasions I have misread a date, or read the wrong line in the ephemeris, yet with the inaccurate data, and come none the less to conclusions that seemed appropriate for the person whose chart I was evaluating. Upon recognizing the mathematical error, I could come up with an evaluation, that while possibly contradictory to the first, would still be appropriate. I have always been aware of this confirmation bias and give it much thought when I encounter it in my own thinking. However, you should understand that it is much more likely that when I have a data error and a persons planets come up incorrect, then Ill look at them and say "Thats strange, this doesn't seem right."
Lets get some other things clear: Im not talking about the ridiculous horoscopes in the paper. Thats not astrology, in my opinion, any more than the Flat Earth Society is an example of Geology. (though they do have their merits!) There is one astrologer with a column in some city's free papers that I've read who I am sure is legit. His names Rob Brezny, and he is really on the ball as far as I'm concerned. He's hilarious too. But most of the astrology out there is useless or worse, and it would be disingenuous to let these kinds of astrology represent the science in your skeptical analysis. I personally have serious disagreements with many of the beliefs and methods of serious astrologers. I dont pay any attention to Horary astrology "predictive astrology" and I don't even pay attention to the Houses, which would sound sacreligious to many astrologers. Just as in conventional science, people have different ideas of how things work. In astrology, since there is such a lack of empirical evidence and "standardization", there are a lot of differing opinions, methods, and results, and they are undoubtedly still developing. It is interesting to note, however, that there are basic astrological beliefs concerning certain alignments or planetary influences which have endured for thousands of years.
A lot of your questions are disingenous, or perhaps merely assuming. That is, you don't seem to understand how astrologers gather information, and you definitely don't seem to have any idea of the relevancy of the history of astrology to your most beloved sciences. Astrology can properly be called the first science. Ancient astrologers didn't wave their hands in the air and make guesses as to the locations of the planets, they charted them with extreme accuracy. For 3000 years, astrology was astronomy. Ptolemy, Gallileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Brahe, all astrologers, and not merely in relation to their astronomy, on the contrary, their astronomical discoveries were often made in the process of their study of astrology. Now, granted, these scientists had a flawed vision of how the universe looked, and we can only put so much weight on the value of their understanding, but consider this: Knowing of the genius of some of these men, of the powers of reason they made such good use of, isnt it likely that if there was nothing at all to Astrology that they wouldn't have studied it? We aren't talking about religion here, we aren't talking about a simple belief that you either hold or you don't, and for which you never expect evidence. These men were scientists and they studied astrology. They spent their entire professional careers pursuing it, as a science. I find it hard to believe that someone as brilliant as Gallileo would study something intently which was completely baseless.
I don't profess to understand the fundamental mechanisms of how the world works; neither does any physicist worth his salt. I have no ideas about the world that cannot be changed by either evidence or experience. My experience has shown me time and time again a correlation between the positions of the planets in relation to the nature of events on earth. That doesn't mean that I can explain it to you. Perhaps you should try explaining the dual nature of light to someone with no scientific experience. Hell, just try explaining the mechanism of gravity, forget about quantum physics. There are many things that we only understand the fundamental science of at a very basic level, yet we believe because our experience tells us there's something to it. Your entire experience with real astrology is most likely quite limited, and you most likely had a smirk on your face throughout the entire experience. Perhaps you'd be a little more hesitant in your dismissal of Astrology if you had experience telling you otherwise.
I have to go, but Ill check up on any responses here.
Posted by: gregory | September 24, 2006 at 11:56 AM
These men were scientists and they studied astrology. They spent their entire professional careers pursuing it, as a science. I find it hard to believe that someone as brilliant as Gallileo would study something intently which was completely baseless.
The problem with argument from authority: You don't need to drop names. What was Galileo's basis for believing in astrology? The arguer is irrelevant to the arguments. So, what were Galileo's arguments in favor of astrology? Just like Newton's belief in alchemy, human beings are fallible: Some scientists are fully capable of acting on unscientific faith.
My experience has shown me time and time again a correlation between the positions of the planets in relation to the nature of events on earth.
Did you document your experiences, as well as times when correlations didn't occur?
Perhaps you'd be a little more hesitant in your dismissal of Astrology if you had experience telling you otherwise.
I'm willing to put aside my biases, but if Astrology keeps failing tests, I'm not about to change my conclusions.
So, do you know of a way to test astrology that you can pass?
Posted by: BronzeDog | September 24, 2006 at 12:15 PM
Skeptico replies to Gregory
Re: I manage to find something less than random in the personality traits of individuals as correlated to the positions of the planets at the time of their birth.
Then how do you explain the fact that when biases are controlled for astrology performs no better than chance?
That was one of my questions to Cassini. He continues to ignore it. Will you?
Re: Ancient astrologers didn't wave their hands in the air and make guesses as to the locations of the planets, they charted them with extreme accuracy. For 3000 years, astrology was astronomy.
Yes, that was what we now call astronomy. What does that have to do with (for example) Saturn conjunct the Moon in the Fourth House indicates a difficult early life and the likelihood of a parent who was not very nurturing?
Re: A lot of your questions are disingenous, or perhaps merely assuming.
I take exception to that. These were reasonable questions that arose directly from what Cassini wrote. He is intellectually dishonest by ignoring them.
Re: Knowing of the genius of some of these men, of the powers of reason they made such good use of, isnt it likely that if there was nothing at all to Astrology that they wouldn't have studied it?
Argument from authority logical fallacy. I did cover that with Cassini too.
Re: Perhaps you should try explaining the dual nature of light to someone with no scientific experience. Hell, just try explaining the mechanism of gravity, forget about quantum physics. There are many things that we only understand the fundamental science of at a very basic level, yet we believe because our experience tells us there's something to it.
False analogy. I am not asking for an explanation of the mechanism. I am asking for:
1) Evidence of how astrology was derived
2) Evidence it works.
Those two questions could be answered easily for gravity. Answer them for astrology please.
Posted by: Skeptico | September 24, 2006 at 01:18 PM
I'd like to note that I'm a PhD student in computer science, and if I hadn't gotten a physics minor back when I was an undergrad, I would have had no exposure whatsoever to the scientific method.
Comp Sci/Math are pretty much purely deductive. We don't touch the scientific method at all, because induction is inferior to deduction any time both could be applied.
The only reason the scientific method is so much more useful is that it's really hard to deduce about the world, because we don't have the right premises... >.>
Posted by: Sotek | September 24, 2006 at 02:50 PM
Hello.
I am a rational and pragmatic person who has complete faith in science, and next to none in religion or any other number of "woo" subjects as you folks call them, yet at the same time, I manage to find something less than random in the personality traits of individuals as correlated to the positions of the planets at the time of their birth. Additionally, in daily life, I witness correlations between the cycles of the solar system and the events of life on Earth.
This is getting more and more common, it seems. Woos think that by simply claiming they're a skeptic and rational we'll be more likely to believe their claims. In a way, it's like argument from authority. It doesn't matter who you are; it matters what your argument is.
We should really come up with a name for this practice...
Posted by: Infophile | September 25, 2006 at 07:23 AM
Hello
Below I tried to answer some of the questions that were posed to Cassini.
1. Where is the evidence the rules of astrology were derived in the way you claim? n/a
2. How could the ancients have figured out all the rules of astrology, if astrology really is too big to compartmentalize this way? The ancients didnt "figure out the rules of astrology". They observed, made statements, false and accurate, adopted their beliefs to the culture of their day, recognized archetypes, explored the human psyche. Astrology isn't science. Our knowledge isnt adequate on astrology to call it science, and to date noone has discovered a way to accurately test astrological premises, so the "rules" will not be to your satisfaction. Its more like, say, psychology, than chemistry. There are tendencies, not rules. When a person is diagnosed with a psychological disorder there isn't a concrete list of behaviors that can be tested scientifically. Yet
3. Are you open minded enough to admit that astrology might not work? What evidence, if any, hypothetically, could ever convince you that astrology does not work? Yes, I could certainly have my mind changed concerning my belief that there is something to astrology, I personally don't have so much invested in it that I couldn't dismiss it It isn't my 'woo religion'. ( Perhaps unlike yourself and the way of the skeptic? The scientific method can indeed become a religious doctrine as well )
However, I don't think it makes sense to speak of astrology "working". I mean, its not a steam engine. Nor is it a yes or no equation. Astrology for me could best be defined as "the correlation of the cycles of the solar system with cyclical events in the life of men". If you can think of a way to disprove that, i'm certainly ready to accept it. I can think of a way to test astrology that i would expect to do better than chance at. I actually take this test every day that I meet someone new. It involves the guessing of a persons dominant signs (the 'sun sign' isnt the only factor in a horoscope) If I can observe a person for awhile, then i can make a guess at their dominant signs, which is most often the sun sign. But i really need to get to know someone to make a good guess, it is rare that I can spot identify someone's signs based solely on their appearance (though there are some folks who are quite obvious).
4. Do you understand that you may be influenced by confirmation bias and the forer effect. If not, why not? If so, do you accept that you could be mistaken when you say “astrology works”? Yes, as I pointed out in my previous post, I have witnessed confirmation bias in my own thought processes before. I have never fallen for the Forer effect, I am too vain for that. As for being mistaken, well my friend, I accept that I could be mistaken on absolutely any subject at all that I should turn my attention to. How about you?
5. What other method could be used to evaluate the accuracy of astrology, if the scientific method is inadequate? I am not convinced that the scientific method is not applicable here. I think a test by the scientific method could be devised to observe astrological influences, the difficulty is in identifying what you are looking for. There is no tool or device to measure astrology. What we are dealing with, as in Psychology, are people and their perceptions. I think the sort of test I mentioned earlier would be in the right direction... the sort of thing where there are 120 random people, the astrologer is allowed to meet them, and see them go about their lives for a day, he gets to observe their behavior, is given a history of their life, and then has to guess their sign. You would need a perceptive astrologer. (I would say 'intuitive', but I wouldn't want to sidetrack your skepticism with another subject) I think I could score much better at this test than 1 in 12.
6. Are the predictions of astrology more likely to happen than pure chance?
I don't believe in astrology as a tool for prediction.
7. If the answer to the above question is “yes”, then how do you explain the fact that when tested astrology doesn’t perform better than pure chance? My answer was no, however, I've yet to hear of a scientific test that sounded like an good way to measure astrological influence. I would love to see one, yet all those I have heard of seemed incapable of identifying what I know of as astrology, and I wasn't suprised that they failed. For instance,Michel Gouquet
8. If you answer “no” – astrology is correct no better than chance – in what way are you claiming astrology “works”? I find it useful as a method of character analysis and as a method of monitoring the cycles of life on Earth, by correlating them with the motions of the planets. I also find astrology to be an elegant and accurate archetypical symbology, a language by which to recognize patterns and tendencies in something as elusive as the human psyche.
By the way, I do feel compelled to point out that the patronizing tone of many self preofessed skeptics is tiresome. I don't mean to make a personal attack here, but for one to suggest that they understand every concept in the universe would be quite a laughable proposition, correct? Well, if you are assuming that you can identify every misconception in the universe, then that amounts to the exact same arrogance. There are unknowns in this life that you and all you wits can't come close to explaining; do you best, by all means, but do it humbly.
yours,
gregory
Posted by: gregory | September 25, 2006 at 07:54 AM
Gregory,
You said: Astrology for me could best be defined as "the correlation of the cycles of the solar system with cyclical events in the life of men". If you can think of a way to disprove that, i'm certainly ready to accept it.
You can't prove a negative. I can't prove the Easter Bunny doesn't live in London, but you could easily prove he does by giving me his address and phone number.
Please tell me what cyclical events are to your knowledge correlated with celestial events.
I know of the circadian rhythm, but that's only approximately daily (which is what it means - about 26 hours if I remember rightly). However, it's known to be based on the very real and measurable phenomenon of sunlight/darkness. Prolonged periods under artificial light mess up the body clock.
If there are other bodily rhythms dependent on distant stars or planets, can you please say what they are, how well they correlate, and what evidence there is that they do?
for one to suggest that they understand every concept in the universe would be quite a laughable proposition, correct? Well, if you are assuming that you can identify every misconception in the universe, then that amounts to the exact same arrogance. There are unknowns in this life that you and all you wits can't come close to explaining
This is an appeal to "other ways of knowing" and a Straw Man argument too. I don't think any skeptic here has even remotely claimed to know everything. However, if someone tells me they can fly by flapping their arms, I want to see them do it before I'll believe it. If the self-claimed flier keeps putting off the demonstration and keeps making excuses for why he cant do it right there and right then, I'm hardly likely to believe him; I don't think you would, either.
Before I believe something, I want to see evidence. As far as I'm concerned, that's an important part of being a half-way intelligent, adult human. If someone I've never met before comes up to me in the street and says "Close your eyes and open your mouth", I don't, as simple as that!
What are these celestial rhythms you mention, and what convinces you that they are real?
Posted by: Big Al | September 25, 2006 at 08:23 AM
Al, everything you say makes sense to me.
I agree the burden of proof is on the positive. That after all is what skepticism's all about. I am sure I don't have that evidence, and I think we are all agreed here that it doesnt currently exist. But I am unwilling to dismiss the phenomena simply because noone has come up with a way to scientifically test it. My personal experience tells me there is something to it.
I think I can identify one of the crux issues which most critics don't understand concerning natal astrology: The focus isnt on the planets, the focus is on the person. It's really a study of people, using the planetary positions as a clock, or a map, of character. The archetypes that astrologers are looking at are the exact same that Jung spent his life analyzing, they are the same which are at the heart of Greek Myth, almost all classic literature, and the myths and legends of tribal peoples the world over. Thats really the part that fascinates me, the fundamental characterists of our lives, and the roles we play. The hero, the virgin, death, birth, expansion and contraction, feast and famine, male and female. These are the things I am looking at and remarking on the interplay of. When it's called Psychology noone here would argue with it. When people use the positions of the planets at birth as a set of symbols to describe the psyche, it suddenly becomes 'woo'. Well, so be it. It certainly isnt a science, but it works for me.
I was just looking at the post from Feb of last year listing all the studies that seem to disprove astrology, and they are substansial. Some of them seem inherently flawed to me, since they depend on some text to serve as the "authority" which determines what exactly the researchers are looking for. I personally have a very, very different set of symbols in my mind than the average astrologer. I break the astrological archetypes into dualities: sun and moon, mars and venus, and jupiter and saturn. Were I to go into detail about what these symbols represent for me, what behavior or the characteristics of events that I expect from their influence, the resulting lecture would differ greatly from every single text that all of those tests skeptico listed used in their studies. There are texts out there that do take a more Jungian approach to astrology: Works by Dane Rudyar and Marc Edmund Jones come to mind. Liz Greene, Mark Arroyo and Jeff Green are three living astrologers who could perhaps be considered as carrying on this school of astrology. I don't know what would be the result were these astrologers used in those tests, perhaps the same. As I said before, I think if we could do the test that I suggeste din my post, I think I would score higher than random.
Want to set it up? : )
I can give an anecdote from my life, of a pretty personal nature, that would be hard to dismiss away as random... give me a couple days and I'll write it up.
In the mean
I'm not claiming I can fly.
I'm making a very small claim:
I have recognized, in 15 years of observation, a correlation between the positions of the planets and events in life. In this same period of time,
Posted by: gregory | September 25, 2006 at 09:13 AM
Arg, I am sorry about these sloppy posts.
Posted by: gregory | September 25, 2006 at 09:16 AM
Skeptico said:
I am not asking for an explanation of the mechanism. I am asking for:
1) Evidence of how astrology was derived
2) Evidence it works.
Those two questions could be answered easily for gravity. Answer them for astrology please.
Question # 1 is easy. (Question 2 is not)
What exactly are you looking for? Books? There are plenty. Astrology has been around longer than writing, but there is no shortage of ancient texts that illustrate archetypes which astrologers still consider valid. Astrology developed in most ancient cultures, including Assyria, Babylon, Ancient China, Ancient India. Greek Myth is loaded with astrological archetypes. The Mayan codexes date to the classical Mayan period and they concern themselves almost entirely with astrology. The I Ching, dating to the Chou Dynasty, 1100BC, is founded on astrological principles. While Europe was immersed in the middle ages, Arabic astrologers charted the entire sky, and we still use many of the names they gave to the stars, names which go back centuries. Human beings have been studying astrology longer than they have been writing. There is no shortage of evidence demonstrating a continuing study of astrological principles, though that in and of itself doent seem to prove anything concerning legitimacy, right?
Concerning question # 2, I agree it should be answerable, yet I think we are all in agreement that there currently exists no evidence of astrology in action. I read Michel Gaugelin years ago, and he did seem to find something, but there was a lot of criticism, and I'm no statistician, so I can't really comment on his tests.
There does seem to be plenty of tests which disprove some kind of astrology, though most of them seem to be testing something very different then what I consider valid astrology. For instance, a person's chart does not merely consist of a sun sign, but many signs, and more importantly for me, their angle to one another. A person often has strong influences that are more in evidence in his character than his sun sign, and none of the tests you listed in your Feb. 2005 post considered this at all.
I discussed earlier what I think would be a possible test using the scientific method which could possibly prove an effect. It would involve an astrologer being tested, as opposed to a text. I have come to the conclusion in my life that I have a better than random sense of a persons birth data. I would love to put it to a scientific test, and am certainly willing to face failure with an open mind. (unlike many so called skeptics) I'm not sure about how to set it up, but I know the criteria I need to evaluate a persons birth data: I need to see them behave, move, speak. Simple observations, including physical appearance.
Posted by: gregory | September 25, 2006 at 10:13 AM
Gregory - this post is completely serious. I am in no way mocking you in the following paragraphs.
If you think you have a good experimental setup (and on first glance, it does sound pretty decent, contact the Randi Foundation and test yourself!
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
James Randi is a famous skeptic, but his challenge is completely real and completely honest. He *will* give $1 million to anyone who can prove any paranormal phenomena (and astrology counts). If you are confident in your ability, do it. Contact them. You don't have to go anywhere or pay anything - the JREF has authorized agents pretty much everywhere, especially in the US, so you can set up the test wherever you wish. Getting enough subjects might be a little difficult, though.
A lot of people have truly believed their claims, and been shown that under rigorous conditions they really do no better than chance. It's an enlightening experience for many. Just think, though, of the enlightenment you could bring if you're right! Plus, you get a million dollars!
A note: if you look up the JREF on the web, you'll hear a lot of guff about Randi 'moving the goalposts' when somebody's about to win. To put it bluntly, it's all BS. They rarely refer to an actual case (preferring to be vague) but even if they do, looking at what really happened makes it obvious that Randi stayed with the pre-written contract, and it was the challenger who backed out.
Read up on the Randi challenge at the link I provided. Submit your case to the forums and let them help you hash out a good testing method. Your idea sounds good, and frankly you don't need anywhere near that many test subjects. I believe the criteria is that you must be able to show that you can perform better than chance with a 1/1,000,000 degree of confidence. This fairly large degree of certainty is required because of the sheer number of people that apply - eventually, someone *will* succeed by chance alone, so you need to set the bar high enough that it takes a long time for that to happen. You don't have to be substantially greater than random chance; being 5% or even just 1% better is testable, it just requires more trials than testing for a larger increase.
Again, I'm not trying to mock your belief in the slightest. You seem confident in your ability, which means that officially testing yourself should be very enlightening no matter what the result is. And once again, if you win, you'll not only win some nice legitimacy for astrology, you'll win $1 million for yourself. Or for a charity, or whatever you want. Do this. For yourself and for others.
Posted by: Xanthir, FCD | September 25, 2006 at 12:20 PM
Skeptico replies to Gregory
Re: I don't think it makes sense to speak of astrology "working".
Either astrology makes predictions or it doesn’t. If the predictions are more accurate than chance, astrology “works”.
By “predictions” I don’t mean “you will get a promotion in September 2007”. I mean your horoscope shows you have leadership qualities, or are an introvert. Or (as for example astrologer Rob Hand tells us ):
We know astrology makes predictions such as these. And those predictions can be compared with what actually transpires. If the predictions are consistent with actuality (greater than random chance), then I would say it “works”. If the predictions are no better than random chance, I would says its predictions are useless – astrology doesn’t “work”. So far, all such tests I’ve read show it doesn’t work.
Re: I think the sort of test I mentioned earlier would be in the right direction... the sort of thing where there are 120 random people, the astrologer is allowed to meet them, and see them go about their lives for a day, he gets to observe their behavior, is given a history of their life, and then has to guess their sign.
That’s not bad, but the problem is there is the possibility of sensory leakage. That is, the astrologer could get other clues about the person’s natal details – could “cheat” if you like. In any case, with the astrologer talking to the person all day you couldn’t rule out such leakage, and so such a protocol would be invalid.
However, the Nature study that kicks off this list of tests is the same as the test you are proposing, except that instead of the astrologer meeting the people for a day, the astrologers received CPI test results for the people. The CPI was supposed to provide the sort of information that a perceptive person would be able to determine by meeting people, and the astrologers agreed that the CPI produced the sort of personality information that astrology was supposed to be able to predict. The astrologers performed no better than random chance:
Re: I've yet to hear of a scientific test that sounded like an good way to measure astrological influence.
What’s wrong with the above test – the one in Nature?
More to the point, if it can’t be tested, how were the rules ever worked out and how do you know the rules are correct? Because by “testing”, I just mean “compare the predictions of astrology with what actually transpires”. If you can’t do that, how do you know the rules you are using are correct?
Re: Some of them seem inherently flawed to me, since they depend on some text to serve as the "authority" which determines what exactly the researchers are looking for. I personally have a very, very different set of symbols in my mind than the average astrologer.
Well, the Nature test included 28 highly respected professional astrologers, so it was testing astrology as the professionals define it.
Re: Astrology developed in most ancient cultures, including Assyria, Babylon, Ancient China, Ancient India. Greek Myth is loaded with astrological archetypes.
Yes, but there is no evidence it was derived. The ancients just made connections based on magical thinking – you were born under Leo so you have the characteristics of a lion (fierce, brave etc). The magic connection was noted and then the ancients (and those not so ancient) just looked for confirmation of the rules. This is primitive thinking – like voodoo. And as I also wrote, if the rules were made up in this way, they are highly unlikely to be correct. At the very least, astrology’s doubtful provenance means we would need extraordinary evidence that it works, before we should accept it does. But we are only offered weak evidence.
Re: most of them seem to be testing something very different then what I consider valid astrology. For instance, a person's chart does not merely consist of a sun sign, but many signs, and more importantly for me, their angle to one another. A person often has strong influences that are more in evidence in his character than his sun sign, and none of the tests you listed in your Feb. 2005 post considered this at all.
Again, the Nature test considered all the natal information, not just the sun sign. They drew up complete horoscopes. Edited to add: many of the other tests also considered the whole horoscopes, planetary aspects etc., so your “none of the tests you listed in your Feb. 2005 post considered this at all” is incorrect.
Still, if you have your own rules that are not used by other astrologers, you would need to test that separately. As Xanthir wrote, you should apply for Randi’s $Million. The JREF have the resources to help you design and conduct such a test.
Posted by: Skeptico | September 25, 2006 at 01:22 PM
I've got some questions for any astrologers:
Does the exact time of birth really make a difference? Would, say, 5 minutes difference in the birth time for 2 people come up with different personalities, or similar ones? Why?
Thanks.
Posted by: Nes | September 25, 2006 at 03:46 PM
I believe the Chinese say you're already a year old when you're born. I wonder if the Western believers in Chinese astrology take that into account.
Still, I guess the real bottom line in this and the other posts is:
Why should I believe in astrology?
If you can't make that clear or at least persuasive, what made you believe in it?
If you can't make that clear or persuasive, why on earth should I believe that you've made a rational decision rather than succumbing to sheer superstition?
Posted by: Big Al | September 25, 2006 at 04:45 PM
Gregory, could you please answer at what point a person is considered 'born' for you and if this has any effect on how you would consider the astrological profile?
Please also answer why being born is more important than the moment of conception in your astrological profile?
My son for instance was concieved on an unknown date (or rather a date not accurately known). My wife's waters broke some 5 days before she went into hospital (quite common for them to break and the mother not to know apparently), labour was induced on one day and the contractions on the same, but he was not born until the next, so which dates affect his astrological profile and why?
Could you please explain the contradiction in your posts that astrology was the first science, and then that astrology is not a science? Your exact quote was 'Astrology can properly be called the first science'. Then in answer to Sceptico's questions you said 'Astrology isn't science'. Please explain.
Could you please explain how you can claim in your first post that you can get someones dates wrong and still come up with an appropriate astrogical profile, and then change the dates, get a contrdictory profile, and still have it be appropriate and then claim that your version of astrology works and is valid.
Say I have a theory of being able to tell you what your favourite colour is by your birthdate. Would you accept it if I said that based on you being born on the 23rd August 2010 your favourite colour is blue, but then found that you were actually born on 23rd November 2004 and therefore decided your colour is red, and that my method of colourogy therefore obviously works because both of my predictions were true, your favourite colour is both blue and red?
Clearly if my claimed profile is 'right' NO MATTER what dates are used, and when the profiles for differing dates are contradictory yet still both are considered appropriate, the method is massively flawed and birthdates can mean nothing.
I think the little church story you provide is of little worth as well. Other than two seperate events completely unconnected occuring at the same time, what relationship is there between the two? If a red car were to always pass by his house at 6am every morning would this also be part of the relationship? What if it were just a random car that always goes past at 6am, but every time Jim got up late it happened to be a blue one, would that mean there was a relationship? What if one day Jim got up but the bells were broken and did not ring? If you want this analogy to represent astrology then what you should do is consider all the things that happen at the time Jim wakes, and all the things that don't, and all the things that could. If your observer were to conclude there was a relationship, they'd be an idiot.
And let's not even go into the argument that none of the sited tests disprove astrology because only you practise real, serious astrology, and they didn't test you. I believe my IQ is bigger than Einstein's, they just don't test IQ in the way that shows it is.
Since most other astrologers practise astrology in the way tested in the tests, can you at least admit that most other astrologers versions of astrology don't work?
Could you also please explain why if astrology was the first science you don't think it can be properly tested using the scientific method?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | September 25, 2006 at 10:11 PM
To be fair, Jimmy, I believe Gregory did say he believed "proper" astrology could be scientifically tested if the right test was formulated.
However, I would have thought if he could explain how it was supposed to work, a proper double-blind test protocol could be worked out.
I must admit that, despite a higher-than-average IQ and a reasonable facility with the English language, I find his posts rich in verbosity and low on comprehensibility or evidence.
Posted by: Big Al | September 26, 2006 at 03:17 AM
Big_Al, I noted Gregory does allow that 'real' astrology could, possibly, maybe, might be tested and that maybe might possibly provide results. I was trying to get at his assertions that astrology is/isn't a science but one that possibly might maybe be testable by the scientific method. All he was doing was trying to make himself look reasonable and rational, whilst already providing himself with an out.
'I said my version of astrology might possibly maybe tested, but I also said it might possibly maybe not get any results, but that doesn't mean it is wrong.'
There was so much qualification, I don't consider him to accept that the science that is or isn't can be tested scientifically. My question gives him a chance to state his position without qualification.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | September 26, 2006 at 06:54 AM
No worries, Jimmy, I was just nitpicking. Whichever way you slice it, Gregory's waffle still doesn't provide any more than anecdote, innuendo, opinion and unbelief.
Nearly a complete set of vowels, with just one crucial omission: evidence.
Posted by: Big Al | September 26, 2006 at 07:57 AM
No worries, Jimmy, I was just nitpicking. Whichever way you slice it, Gregory's waffle still doesn't provide any more than anecdote, innuendo, opinion and unbelief.
Nearly a complete set of vowels, with just one crucial omission: evidence.
Posted by: Big Al | September 26, 2006 at 08:00 AM
Damn! That double-post thing's hit me again.
It must be quantum.
Posted by: Big Al | September 26, 2006 at 08:01 AM
Hey Nes, I don't know if you're still checking back here for an answer to your question about birth time but I believe I
can remember the gist enough to ramble my way through an answer in the "rules" or process or whatever.
Time of birth (in conjunction with location) is used to calculate one's rising sign or ascendent which is the constellation that was rising over the horizon line at your time of birth. In order to calculate all the "houses" and the "angles" and all the other stuff I never got around to dabbling with nor remember the terms for, you need to know the rising as it is the first house in a chart (the pie thing with 12 sections). The other signs are then placed in each successive house in order started with the first sign after your rising in the second house. So "technically" (insert ironic chuckles here) you can't make a complete chart without the rising (although you could at least figure out what signs each planet was in with just your DOB).
OK so most of the time that 5 minute margin of error on time won't make a lick of difference and as long as you are within something like an hour or maybe two (All 12 of them rotate through in one day each is the rising for two hours each day), you should still come up with the same result. THe only time it would make a difference is if the birth time is really close to the "cusp" when the rising changes. THen that five minutes could be the distinction between the two different signs, and in turn affects the pie thing by offsetting what signs are in each house.
On a side note, trying to figure out how being born premature, on another planet, while travelling by high speed jet over a large body of water, or by C section would effect this whole mess one drunken night resulted in much hilarity and a curiosly swollen ankle. I still don't remember how I hurt the ankle. I may or may not have written a short story that my hard drive later ate. Good times.
In case it helps here's an inaccurate example in terms of the order the constellations move across the horizon (and probably as far as time of day goes). Please pardon the bogus astronomy as I'm just picking signs whose supposed characteristics I actually know a bit about, (my own sun and rising in case you care).
So you can't recall if you were born at 12:55pm or 1:00pm. If you guess 12:55 the rising turns out to be Pisces. In brief theory, this would indicate a highly intuitive, creative and emotionally reactive person prone to daydreaming or storytelling and possibly frequent bouts of depression. On a Meyers Briggs they would likely come out NFP with an even split between E and I. Again I say whatever.
Now if you guess 1:00pm instead, let's say it means their rising is Virgo (it would actually be either Aquarius or Aries, I'm not sure which and I don't know as much of the woo on those so let's just pretend shall we). Virgo is the opposite of Pisces (which can imply that they are more similar on the inside than they appear at a glance, hows that for some crap, heh), highly analytical, logical, perhaps a touch on the OCD side. One running joke is "I'm a Virgo so I don't believe in astrology." Which is bull as I know plenty of Virgo believers but whatever. THeoretically, myers briggs test would likely produce ISTJ.
Now what part of your personality your rising is supposed to be has always confused me a bit (and let's not even touch the subject of divination/event prediction because I never bought that angle even at my wooiest so I couldn't even begin to guess what risings mean to that). The big three are Sun, Moon and Rising, with the balance of the traits making up a quick overview and blah blah blah. But sometimes the descriptions for Rising and Moon are so bloody new agey weird that even the new agers find them useless (or at least I did). I always got them mixed up with each other depending on what I was reading.
I think it's that Sun is surface personality, rising what people see when they get to know you a bit (so the two together are your whole outwardly perceived personality) and moon is some sort of internal "emotional self" or some such (I vaguely remember the terms involuntary and instinctive and an example describing how one deals with emotional trauma or emergencies).
Again using my own info for an example. I'm Pisces sun and moon, virgo rising. So in theory at first people think I'm this nutty artsy chatty type (tends to be true), then they realize I'm also fairly logical and somewhat anal rententive with and odd shy streak (also true, the chatty is a nervous twitch and the combination of the extremes gives me migraines), and deep down on the inside I'm a big sap whose emotions are like some psychotic roller coaster ride on acid and I can't turn my own brain off sometimes (much to my dismay also true). But as you can see from just my brief description it's totallay subjective and the whole process lends itself to selecting the aspects that you think apply (or wish applied) to varying degrees depending on source materials for descriptions and more blah blah. WHich was half the fun and is why I still have the books.
In any event, before an astrologer shows up and tries to site me as being the missing "e" in Big Al's vowel equation, there is some stuff in my complete chart that doesn't quite match my personality no matter how you interpret it. Also, you only have my word to go on that I really come across to most people how I say I do. So chill out there Eager. I probably am more like my whole chart than most people but it's still not 100% by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe 60ish at a guess. I don't think you can really apply percentage math with any degree of accuracy and my Virgo side isn't comfortable with that dichotomy. ;)
And as always, at least I crack myself up.
Posted by: mouse | September 27, 2006 at 09:25 AM
This is funny.. Did anyone ever consider the third option? Let me explain.
Believers say astrology is true because it works. Critics claim its false, therefore it cannot work.
But 'work' and 'true' are two different things! It might be true and not work, or -in the case- false, but it works!
For some at least it works, and it works better if you do believe it to be true, but this is not a strict requirement.
It works exactly like Tarot cards or the I-Ching. The whole purpose of the calculations, coin flipping or card shuffling is to obtain (semi)random data.
This data can then be translated into vague, equally random discriptions that aid in finding meaning and guidance in ones personal life.
The system is designed to maximize both the Confirmation bias and Forer effect. It is thanks to those effects that one is able to pick any usefull ideas and thoughts out of a random collection. THAT is the whole purpose and for that it works great!
If you remove the bias/effect thing in a double blind test, then it wont work and that is why it cannot be tested scientifically.
It is just that people prefer to believe in wisdom from the stars rather than themselves fetching it from a random number generator, but they both work...
On a side note, this Cassini is what I call a space-dotter. These are really weird people, not bad in any way, just very weird. You recognise them by their punctuation, putting a space and then a dot between two sentences, not the other way around like normal people do.
Posted by: | September 27, 2006 at 01:35 PM
Lol, thanks mouse. The reason I ask is because of twins; how would astrology explain twins born 5 minutes apart with nearly identical personalities, and twins born 5 minutes apart with totally opposite personalities? (I have experience with the latter in my family.) I find it rather hard to believe that every set of twins (fraternal or identical) with different personalities just happened to be born on either side of a sign change ;-)
Posted by: Nes | September 27, 2006 at 01:35 PM
Skeptico replies to (no name)
Re: Believers say astrology is true because it works. Critics claim its false, therefore it cannot work.
It’s the other way round: I claim it doesn’t work therefore it’s false.
Re: But 'work' and 'true' are two different things! It might be true and not work, or -in the case- false, but it works!
I’m defining them as being essentially the same.
Re: It works exactly like Tarot cards or the I-Ching. The whole purpose of the calculations, coin flipping or card shuffling is to obtain (semi)random data.
This data can then be translated into vague, equally random discriptions that aid in finding meaning and guidance in ones personal life.
You seem to be advocating Astrology as psycho-analysis that I wrote about before. I wrote it’s useless for this for two reasons:
More at the link.
Posted by: Skeptico | September 27, 2006 at 02:05 PM
Nes: I've wondered the same thing regarding twins. Can't believe I forgot about it because my friends (pisces twins) were invovled somehow on the night of the ankle thing. They are a like in many ways but some of their identical mental issues manifest differently.
Skep: While I definitely get and in many cases agree with your above points (particulary in terms of using this stuff as an excuse to continue to be messed up), I actually feel I did get something useful in terms of self awareness out of tarot and astrology. But I this may be because of some specific aspects of my approach, ultimate conclusions on the topic(s), and oddities in my personality in general (or chemical imbalances if you prefer).
I think I'd sum it up as me finding new (to me at the time) explanations for how oddball subconcious behaviour can manifest; for example my self destructive tendencies combined with difficulty with my own emotions (I think the shrink phrase would be "getting in touch with them" or perhaps controlling them).
I don't mean the prediction of my own traits according to charts and such specifically was what helped so much as reading about patterns of behaviour and thought I hadn't conciously thought about but had definitely been experiencing. Some of it came from descriptions of stuff that supposedly had nothing to do with me (according to the chart anyway). Like not having any Scorpio in your chart but reading a few well written descriptions about the Sign and totally identifying with one key passage that suddenly clues you into something you didn't even know was a problem.
Basically I think that if I had come across the same details on these behaviours from another source (psychology and bio-psych being the obvious examples I guess, though I've gotten the same results from some great Sci Fi as well) and it was still presented in whatever language/phrasing pattern it was that clicked for me, I would have had the same "Oh my goodness I totally do that," reaction that caused me to start changing my patterns and choices. THe proverbial light bulb over my head as it were.
So in my case, it led to an acknowledgment of some stupid crap I did but didn't really look at before and led to better choices, and simultaneously cemented my belief that there was likely nothing to it in terms of the normal woo interpretations (I'm not seeing the future, nor am I destined to be an emotional wreck just because my Saturn and Mars are in conflict or whatever). It is an ongoing challenge, however, as it any weird mental dysfunction or challenging brain chemistry, and I must say that when that emotional distance crops up again I still find the tarot cards useful on ocassion. It's the abstract nature of it. I flip them over, stare at the pretty pictures and see what jumps out to my eye. If nothing else, I end up with an interesting story idea and clear my head, which is always helpful.
Drawing, reading, or writing are sometimes the better choice (totally depends on mood). I'd imagine it's similar to what people who meditate feel they gain from the practice (though personally I prefer going dancing to something with a bit of funk to it).
Posted by: mouse | September 27, 2006 at 04:08 PM
Hello,
Ive been in the woods rock climbing. Don't have the time right now to respond, but Ive downloaded this page and will respond later. If anyone was interested.
gregory
Posted by: gregory | September 29, 2006 at 10:08 AM
Off topic post deleted by Skeptico.
Bill - please take your argument with Randi straight to Randi, and don't spam by blog.
- Skeptico.
Posted by: Bill Perron | September 30, 2006 at 11:32 AM
Astrology doesn't need to pass controlled scientific tests. Research (or even mere observation) shows that people don't need to see the results of scientific tests before they believe. If people believe, even without scientific evidence, we astrologers can take money from them, essentially for free.
Astrologers could fund scientific tests, but the results aren't relevant to our
victimscustomers, and they would probably contradict us anyway. I don't think they're a justifiable business expense.Posted by: Maronan | October 01, 2006 at 02:03 AM
"That's why we never do double blind tests, they never work." - Said by a Chiropractor after such a test proved them wrong.
Posted by: Infophile | October 01, 2006 at 10:48 AM
Gregory, could you please answer at what point a person is considered 'born' for you and if this has any effect on how you would consider the astrological profile?
I consider a person born upon their first breath. As far as western astrology is concerned I believe it's the same.
Please also answer why being born is more important than the moment of conception in your astrological profile? From the moment of conception until birth I believe a creature is technically, part of its mother. Birth, the moment a child takes it's first breath on its own, is the moment it becomes a seperate life and that's when astrology makes the chart. I don't know "why" it's more important, just as I dont know how it works. If you want me to give you made up theories, you'll have to sucker someone else into the conversation.
My son for instance was concieved on an unknown date... so which dates affect his astrological profile and why? I think most astrologers would say the date of his first breath ie the moment of birth.
Could you please explain the contradiction in your posts that astrology was the first science, and then that astrology is not a science?
Yes, ive used the word science in dual meanings. I don't think we can currently call astrology a science, because there isnt the evidence or the proof that we demand of science. I called it the first science, meaning study, or school of thought, which it undoubtedly was.
Could you please explain how you can claim in your first post that you can get someones dates wrong and still come up with an appropriate astrogical profile, and then change the dates, get a contrdictory profile, and still have it be appropriate and then claim that your version of astrology works and is valid.
Actually, I was confirming that I have at times in the past witnessed myself fall prey to one of the flaws in reasoning, the "Confirmation Bias". I used that example to show that yes I have indeed noticed this happening to me in my own personal experiences with astrology, and that no I am not brainwashed beyond admitting to my own logical fallacies.
Say I have a theory of being able to tell you what your favourite colour is by your birthdate. Would you accept it if I said that based on you being born on the 23rd August 2010 your favourite colour is blue, but then found that you were actually born on 23rd November 2004 and therefore decided your colour is red, and that my method of colourogy therefore obviously works because both of my predictions were true, your favourite colour is both blue and red?
See above. I obviously wasnt admitting to the confirmation bias to bolster my claim of having witnessed something to astrology, i was using it to display my inability to deny a successful scientific counter argument to my belief in astrology. In effect, I am admitting to being irrational. More on this later.
Clearly if my claimed profile is 'right' NO MATTER what dates are used, and when the profiles for differing dates are contradictory yet still both are considered appropriate, the method is massively flawed and birthdates can mean nothing.
If your claimed profile was 'right', Yep.
I think the little church story you provide is of little worth as well. Other than two seperate events completely unconnected occuring at the same time, what relationship is there between the two?
Undeniably in my little analogy there is what I claimed: a correlation. What there isnt is a causal relationship. This story was to illustrate how I think of the mechanism of astrology, a correlation without causality. That is the relationship.
If a red car were to always pass by his house at 6am every morning would this also be part of the relationship? What if it were just a random car that always goes past at 6am, but every time Jim got up late it happened to be... If your observer were to conclude there was a relationship, they'd be an idiot.
Wrong. If they were to conclude a causal relationship, they'd be an idiot. A relationship, in and of itself, exists. You could reliably tell the time from one event or the other. You could reliably confirm the occurence of one by the other.
And let's not even go into the argument that none of the sited tests disprove astrology because only you practise real, serious astrology, and they didn't test you. I am not saying that. I realize that this is a standard logical fallacy: "but it would have worked for me" I can't really contradict the results of some of those tests, they seem quite substantial. The second Carlson test is especially persuasive. (The first one is irrelevant, i think, because it depends on a person to evaluate themselves. Not all people a)know themselves very well, and b)would be completely honest to themselves in their description, if they did know.) I will say, again, that I can see flaws with some of the other tests, due to what they were testing, and how. Not all of those tests are evidence against astrology as I know it, and some came up with evidence in support, did it not? Such as Gaugelins discovery of a relevance to Mars angles? But there is undoubtedly scientific evidence there contradicting an astrological phenomena.
Since most other astrologers practise astrology in the way tested in the tests, can you at least admit that most other astrologers versions of astrology don't work?
YES. I have never denied this. I have personally never paid for a reading, and would be skeptical of anyone charging for one. I have never charged for giving a reading, ever. "Formulaic" astrology, what most of those tests were testing, is a shot in the dark. Intuitive astrology, what I have had experience with, and hold a certain degree of belief in, works for me.
Could you also please explain why if astrology was the first science you don't think it can be properly tested using the scientific method?
Semantics. I don't think astrology is science, as we now understand science to be. However science as we define it here today is not how it has always been defined. Our understanding and methods of understanding have changed over history.
Astrology was one of the first subjects of thought that human beings condensed into a dedicated study. You think that they studied nonsense, but that doesnt change the fact that they studied it. Thats why I say it was the first science (possibly not the first, who knows? Botany, metallurgy...) But today, with the stringent requirements of science, with the unprecedented depth with which we can observe the world, with the rigid protocol used to verify claims and theories, astrology does not measure up. So, as I said before, I do not think we can currently refer to astrology as a science. (I don't think Psychology can accurately be called one either)
Posted by: gregory | October 02, 2006 at 12:43 PM
Big AL said:
Still, I guess the real bottom line in this and the other posts is:
Why should I believe in astrology?
Who cares if you believe in it or not? I certainly don't. Whatever works for you. I'm not saying let's teach it in high school, Im just saying I think there's something there.
If you can't make that clear or at least persuasive, what made you believe in it?
I've already said what makes me believe in it. Repetition of patterns. Heres some: every month the moon comes around, and in certain phases and signs I feel certain things, in my body and mind. I have more hunger than normal at the the new moon, on full moons I usually fast. A cancer full moon is inevitably an emotional time. At my Saturn return I have a completely typical Saturninan experience: Pain, challenge, contraction. To the extreme, not just some little thing that I interpret with the confirmation bias, but an obvious Saturn return. In my relationships, basic patterns of how elements react are stongly reinforced. Sex with water signs is always awesome, sex with fire never is... These are astrological ideas that I have seen reinforced over and over. Repeat all this for 10 years and I'm a believer. Your arguments arent worth a fig to me in the face of my own feelings. Call me pragmatic.
To be fair, Jimmy, I believe Gregory did say he believed "proper" astrology could be scientifically tested if the right test was formulated. However, I would have thought if he could explain how it was supposed to work, a proper double-blind test protocol could be worked out.
Posted by: Big Al |
Actually I dont know how it works, and I've never claimed to. I've talked about ideas ive had when thinking about possible mechanisms. They are obviously just guesses. I dont know how a printing press works either, but that doesnt stop me from reading the newspaper, when it has something worthwhile to say. The planetary postions often tell me worthwhile things, like: "Plant the basil tomorrow", "Keep away from the redhead" and "The folks at Skeptico.com will never, ever, believe in astrology." Yes, they mentioned this site by name. They are very angry, plagues to follow.
Posted by: gregory | October 02, 2006 at 12:48 PM
Skeptico said:
You seem to be advocating Astrology as psycho-analysis that I wrote about before. I wrote it’s useless for this for two reasons:
The first is that since personality characteristics predicted by astrology bear no relation to the actual personality characteristics, astrology is not much use as an aide to self-awareness.
The second argument is that most people use astrology as an excuse for bad behavior rather than an opportunity to change it.
I dont think you've offered any proof here at all of the uselessness of Astrology as a tool for psycho analysis.
First argument:
When astrology is used as psychoanalysis, at least in the hands of a responsible person, there is no prediction. That would be irresponsible in any counselor type setting. All that is discussed are the past, the tools and methods of the present to deal with the past and future, and the hoped for direction of the future. No prediction involved. You use the symbols of the zodiac to describe the situation, but it could as easily be Jungian terms, or modern psychological terminology.
I once sat down with a newly married couple, friends, who asked me to talk with them. They wanted astrology, a comparison of their charts, it ended up being more like marraige counseling using astrological/jungian symbols. I didnt think their charts looked like a smooth relationship at all, some difficult angles in crucial relationship areas, father/daughter issues, saturns opposing moons... but I certainly didnt say this, instead focused on what their areas of trouble were, (which confirmed the saturn/moon angles) and tried to encourage them to find ways to smooth them out. I could have told them to get a divorce, thats what the charts said at least, but of course I didn't. I think they ended up getting one none the less...
Second argument: (Astrology as psycho analysis is pointless because "most people use astrology as an excuse for bad behavior rather than an opportunity to change it")
This kind of person wouldn't get help from ANY psycho analysis, so don't blame astrology. I think it's more likely that if someone has consented to or sought out any form of analysis, they will be open to positive suggestions, and will try to use them. This 'argument' doesnt reflect on any way on astrology's relevance as a tool for analysis.
Despite a little invention of your own (these arguments) the fact is that Astrology does help people every day, exactly as a tool for self analysis and transformation. And that can be proven. Ask 1000 people like mouse what the net effect of their astrological reading was and theyll probably admit to some worthwhile soul searching. Even if it was prompted by a desire to refute the astrology, if they thought deeply about themselves, then thats a good thing, and indeed, that was the desired goal.
You were asking before about whether astrology actually works in any way. If anything, this is the most tangible work it's used for, and it works perfectly. Its not at all a proof of astrology, but it is something that can be said in it's favor. As Mouse said, you could do it with lots of things, a good book or a shrink, ive been doing it with rock climbing all weekend, whatever you like, but astrology meets this task perfectly by getting people to look closely at the different elements of their psyche, and it gives them a handsome set of ancient symbols by which to do it. Even if you believe that an astrological chart is completely irrelevant nonsense, you should certainly be able to see the good that can come from a person analyzing characterists of their psyche while trying to see themselves in it's mirror. Scientific, no, functional, yes.
Mouse: hilarious, wise and funky post.
Posted by: gregory | October 02, 2006 at 12:51 PM
The crux of the issue, and the reason why I personally find something at this site to chew on, is all about complete faith in the methods of modern science. The skeptics entire belief is based on science. You folks believe that it can answer any question we may have of the world. I don't. I think sometimes science doesnt even know which questions to ask, nevermind where to look in order to get the answers. And, more crucially, I think that there will always be things too small to see, no matter the power of the microscope, and that there will always be things too far away, no matter how large the telescope. And I think when we see the next small and far thing, and give it a name, and prove it's existence, we will always find there is more beyond. This is exactly what is happening in modern physics. And I think is that which exists, perhaps even entire universes, which we can't see with any scope at all. When science asks the big questions, it only finds more questions behind. This is not rational; Neither is Eternity. Yet there it is, the fabric of the universe, and it cannot be tested in any lab.
Quarks, hadrons, bosons... They should just start giving them numbers, because they are never going to get to anything resembling a foundation. They are just going to get deeper and deeper into a mystery called eternity. Within that mystery, there is plenty of room for behavior and phenomena which does not conform to the way science says it should. I think Physics sets the irrational precedent, confirming the possibilty of that which is impossible: if a particle of matter can be in two places at once, or even two different things at once, then why can't an unprovable belief be legitimate? Who says it can't? On what authority? If new discoveries can throw to the wind all hope of a unified theory, even suggesting the possibilities of alternate universes where different fundamental rules apply then why can't you people accept that maybe, just maybe, things arent as neat and tidy as you claim them to be in this one? Do you deny the Physics? Then don't deny it's implications.The rules may have changed on you, and they may be not at all what you think them to be. Yet you speak so very assuredly of what is real and what is not. I find this amusing.
I think that for man the fundamental nature of the universe will always be mystery, and it's undoubtedly irrational. I think our very concept of what exists and what doesn't will change over and over before the debate is done, which it never will be, of course. So, I have no qualms accepting unproven beliefs, especially those supported by my own feelings. In the long run they may be just as solid as any matter you can measure.
A conversation on belief amongst unbelievers is pointless. Whether we are addressing astrology, or telepathy, the nature of dreams, alternate dimensions, Buddhas, whatever, it's irrelevant. Believers measure the world by their heart. You folks have one measuring stick, the scientific method, and if it dont fly there, you don't accept nothin. Physicists are also trying to stay true to the scientific method, and they are having a hard time of it. Unproven, and perhaps even unprovable theories are becoming more and more common.
While I don't deny it's observations of the material world, I don't limit my belief to the scientific method. Instead I accept both imagined possibilities and even simply perceived phenomena as potentially worthwhile of belief. If my own feelings confirm that there is something there, then that means something to me. To you feelings are irrelevant, and not admissable as the proof you seek. You only believe what you can test. Again, I don't admire this safe point of view, I scoff at it. It's boring. And, at the end of the day, I don't think it works. It certainly does seem logical, but is the world logical?
You'll accuse me now of something you call an "Appeal to other ways of knowing". As if your mere statement would dismiss my claims. I'm not arguing for other ways of knowing, I'm arguing for all ways of knowing as inadequate. Our science is not the measure of all things; it is incomplete knowledge and always will be. Forgive me if I allow possibilities it denies to linger in my mind.
Posted by: gregory | October 02, 2006 at 12:59 PM
Look, forget astrology. I have my own doubts about formulaic astrology, it's methods and conclusions, and the astrologers who arrive at them. I will not dismiss the entire subject out of hand, because i have had, and continue to have, experience that tells me there is some kind of correlation between the cycles of human life and planetary motion. Patterns and cycles. Thats why I think there is something to it. I've also had very relevant Tarot readings. Does that make me irrational? Maybe it does. Does it make me a fool? Not in the slightest.
I don't expect to change a single skeptics mind concerning any unprovable phenomena in the world, astrology included, and I'm not trying to. That's not what prompted me to respond here. Moreso, it's the strange taste i get in my mouth when I hear a bunch of people speak as if they claim to know exactly how the universe works, or how it doesn't, or even that they can know. You don't, anymore than me. You call things proven, because they pass a test. I have room in my mind for mystery, for that which is intangible, and has none of your proof. There's plenty of room in there, after all. I am capable of admitting that there may be phenomena in the universe which modern science cannot put it's narrow finger on. In fact, I am capable of admitting that the entire universe as we know it may be an elaborate illusion.
I have witnessed things in my life that make no scientific sense, things that a scientist could not even begin to explain. This is probably the most relevant reason for my own skepticism of your skepticism. I have experienced first hand things that would shake the foundations of your logical little world if you were to have confronted them. This opens my mind a little bit wider than the scientific method. When I declare my belief in the unproven, I have these unexplainable things I have seen in mind. They don't contradict your science, but they refer to things it has not imagined. So I don't consider the limits of scientific understanding to be the limits to my own thinking as well.
Honestly, it's comical, the zeal with which you attack others' beliefs; I have read in these pages one or another of you claiming to be saviors. As if your super rational world view was just what we were all waiting for. You may style yourselves as missionaries of truth, but heres a fact: many people with unproven beliefs don't need your help. They are doing just fine, winning nobel prizes, creating beautiful works of art, discovering the theory of relativity... they really are doing just fine, irrational beliefs and all.
I am aware that there are dimensions to reality which we cannot explain with our current level of scientific understanding. In special moments I witness them in my own life. You witness nothing, you merely doubt the accounts of others. I'll say it again: I could tell you of things that I have experienced first hand, sober, that you could not begin to explain. You would have to insist I was lying. You would have to reject them out of hand to preserve your tidy world view. The world is not neat and tidy. There are mysteries we cannot answer, and there are realities we cannot scientifically prove. Does anyone here deny this? If so, he is most certainly not without belief, for such faith in reason approches the religious.
In a general sense, people like me know everything that you skeptics do, despite your attempts to claim reason; we share your belief in science, and we accept all logically proven knowledge. Yet unlike yourselves, thats not where our belief ends, shrivelling up awaiting confirmation from the scientific method. Your understanding of the world ends at the laboratory door. You won't accept anything without proof, and a very specific kind of proof as well, yet there are realities that cannot be proven. Hence, your understanding of the world is, and always will be, woefully incomplete. The rest of us, on the other hand, are free to imagine, to believe, to create. We are the ones who sing for no reason, who paint those crazy illogical impressionist pictures, who have visions that inspire us to do great things, who write the poetry that doesn't have a shred of evidence to it. I will continue to experience faith, not in a personal god, but in the mystery of the universe itself. I will continue to be moved by irrational passions, to imagine and to dream; you can keep your holy reason and the narrow window on the world it offers. Call me irrational, just don't call me stupid.
gregory
www.universalcat.org
Posted by: gregory | October 02, 2006 at 01:15 PM
Skeptico replies to gregory
Re: I dont think you've offered any proof here at all of the uselessness of Astrology as a tool for psycho analysis.
First argument:
When astrology is used as psychoanalysis, at least in the hands of a responsible person, there is no prediction.
I covered this in a comment above (that you ignored). Astrology makes predictions – it predicts the personality characteristics of people based on their natal data. Do you deny that astrology predicts the personality characteristics of people based on their natal data? If not, what does it do?
Re: (Astrology as psycho analysis is pointless because "most people use astrology as an excuse for bad behavior rather than an opportunity to change it")
This kind of person wouldn't get help from ANY psycho analysis, so don't blame astrology… This 'argument' doesnt reflect on any way on astrology's relevance as a tool for analysis.
Of course it does. People use astrology as an excuse for their bad behavior. Their horoscope tells them that is the way they are, and so it’s pointless to try to change. Psychotherapy takes the view that behavior can be changed.
But I note you are admitting here that astrology is not accurate – its predictions are no more accurate than chance.
Re: Despite a little invention of your own (these arguments) the fact is that Astrology does help people every day, exactly as a tool for self analysis and transformation.
Evidence please, that it has actually helped people more than it hurt them. Evidence, that is, other than anecdotes.
Re: The crux of the issue, and the reason why I personally find something at this site to chew on, is all about complete faith in the methods of modern science.
Oh boy – this is the Equivocation fallacy. You are saying trust in science is the same as religious faith – really lame.
Re: You folks believe that it can answer any question we may have of the world.
Straw man. No one has said anything so ridiculous. It’s easier for you to make up these ridiculous ideas, assign them to me (or “you folks”), and then ridicule that made up idea, than it is to answer our real arguments or our real questions.
Re: And, more crucially, I think that there will always be things too small to see, no matter the power of the microscope, and that there will always be things too far away, no matter how large the telescope.
Oh boy – this time it’s a fallacious appeal to “science doesn’t know everything”. Of course, science doesn’t know everything, but you think the corollary is that any idea you like the sound of, that cannot be proven false, is worthy of consideration. Wrong. Something is only worthy of consideration if there is a reason to suppose it is true.
If astrology is real, its effects would be noticeable in the tests I linked.
Re: if a particle of matter can be in two places at once, or even two different things at once, then why can't an unprovable belief be legitimate?
It can, but that’s the wrong question. The question is, is there a reason to suppose that astrology is real? You haven’t given us one yet. And appealing to the mysteries of quantum mechanics isn’t a reason to suppose astrology is real.
Re: While I don't deny it's observations of the material world, I don't limit my belief to the scientific method. Instead I accept both imagined possibilities and even simply perceived phenomena as potentially worthwhile of belief. If my own feelings confirm that there is something there, then that means something to me.
But your feelings can confuse you. It is only since the development of the scientific method that man began to understand the universe. Before we learned the scientific method we fooled ourselves into believing in a lot of things we now know are false. Your argument is just a fallacious appeal to other ways of knowing. Science has proved to be the most reliable method we know for evaluating claims and figuring out how the universe works. If the you claim there is a better method, it is up to you to justify that claim – and you haven’t justified why your “own feelings” would be any good. My feelings indicate astrology is a load of nonsense. Why are your feelings likely to be more correct than mine?
Re: You only believe what you can test. Again, I don't admire this safe point of view, I scoff at it. It's boring. And, at the end of the day, I don't think it works.
It doesn’t work? Don’t be stupid – you’re typing this on a computer aren’t you? How do you think computers were developed? By “feelings”?
Re: You'll accuse me now of something you call an "Appeal to other ways of knowing". As if your mere statement would dismiss my claims. I'm not arguing for other ways of knowing, I'm arguing for all ways of knowing as inadequate.
You’re appealing to science doesn’t know everything, as I wrote above. And it’s not just my “mere statement” of this that makes your argument fallacious, it’s my explanation (that you have not refuted) of why this is fallacious, that means your argument is fallacious.
Re: Look, forget astrology. I have my own doubts about formulaic astrology, it's methods and conclusions, and the astrologers who arrive at them. I will not dismiss the entire subject out of hand, because i have had, and continue to have, experience that tells me there is some kind of correlation between the cycles of human life and planetary motion. Patterns and cycles.
But what is that if it’s not “testing”? You are just testing astrology using flawed methodology – one that doesn’t control for the effects of your biases.
Re: Thats why I think there is something to it. I've also had very relevant Tarot readings. Does that make me irrational? Maybe it does. Does it make me a fool? Not in the slightest.
It makes you mistaken.
Re: Moreso, it's the strange taste i get in my mouth when I hear a bunch of people speak as if they claim to know exactly how the universe works, or how it doesn't, or even that they can know.
Funny, because I get a strange taste in my mouth when people make up stuff they claim I have said, and then refute that made up stuff. Made up stuff such as I “claim to know exactly how the universe works”, for example. That really annoys me, since I never made any such claim. It’s yet another straw man. Clearly you have no valid arguments – all you have are fallacious ones.
Re: I have witnessed things in my life that make no scientific sense, things that a scientist could not even begin to explain. This is probably the most relevant reason for my own skepticism of your skepticism.
Ooh, you’re skeptical of my skepticism. Never heard that lame-ass phrase before either. Pathetic.
Re: I have experienced first hand things that would shake the foundations of your logical little world if you were to have confronted them.
No, no, don’t tell me, you’ve:
I’ve seen Bladerunner too.
Re: This opens my mind a little bit wider than the scientific method.
Oh no - a fallacious appeal to be open minded. An open mind is open to all ideas, but it must be open to the possibility that the idea could be true or false. It is not closed-minded to reject claims that make no sense, but if you can’t accept the possibility that an idea might be false, then you are the closed minded one.
Re: Honestly, it's comical, the zeal with which you attack others' beliefs; I have read in these pages one or another of you claiming to be saviors.
And where did I write that? Oh, I get it, another straw man.
What a load of blather. Fallacies repeated using more words each time. No more meaning, though. Still, I note the following exchange:
OK, so we agree astrology as practiced by people other that you, doesn’t work. So how have you come to this conclusion? How do you know they are all wrong, and you are right? What makes you so special that you have all the answers and all the other astrologers in the world are wrong? How do you know this?
Posted by: Skeptico | October 02, 2006 at 03:09 PM
RE: I consider a person born upon their first breath. As far as western astrology is concerned I believe it's the same.
Why do you consider this to be the moment of birth? When, why and how was this determined for astrology? Do you consider stillborn births to be births since no first breath is taken?
RE:From the moment of conception until birth I believe a creature is technically, part of its mother. Birth, the moment a child takes it's first breath on its own, is the moment it becomes a seperate life and that's when astrology makes the chart. I don't know "why" it's more important, just as I dont know how it works. If you want me to give you made up theories, you'll have to sucker someone else into the conversation.
Is the child still 'technically' part of its mother before the umbilical is cut but after it has passed fully through the birth canal? Even after it has taken it's first breath? I can't believe that none of the biologists have picked up on this. If a foetus is viable after 24 weeks, how is it still part of its mother? If someone kills a pregnant mother, do you believe one life or two lives are taken?
RE:I think most astrologers would say the date of his first breath ie the moment of birth.
Again, how, why and when was this defined? If you understand this is the moment, you must understand why it is the moment also.
RE:...I called it the first science, meaning study, or school of thought, which it undoubtedly was.
Notwithstanding you later back pedalling, what is your basis for the 'undoubtedly' claim? What is the basis for your claim that astrology was the first study or school of thought?
RE:Actually, I was confirming that I have at times in the past witnessed myself fall prey to one of the flaws in reasoning, the "Confirmation Bias". I used that example to show that yes I have indeed noticed this happening to me in my own personal experiences with astrology, and that no I am not brainwashed beyond admitting to my own logical fallacies.
So if you admit that your first result was confirmation bias, how do you determine that the second, third, one hundredth, eight thousandth readings were NOT confirmation bias as well? What make one reading you thought accurate different to another reading you thought accurate?
RE:I obviously wasnt admitting to the confirmation bias to bolster my claim of having witnessed something to astrology, i was using it to display my inability to deny a successful scientific counter argument to my belief in astrology. In effect, I am admitting to being irrational. More on this later.
No, you are admitting that you can get two opposing readings about the same person, believe both to be correct, and still believe astrology works as you practise it and not miss a beat in doing so. What you said was effectively 'Well the first time is sometimes confirmation bias because it just looks like I was right, but the second time I'm right because it looks like I'm right.'
You honestly see nothing wrong with a system that gives the right answer even when you input the wrong values into the system? If your results are so subjective they can be so heavily influenced by confirmation bias, then they are useless.
RE:If your claimed profile was 'right', Yep.
Am I just not in on the joke? You just admitted that if both of your profiles are judged by you to be right about the same person, even when the profiles contradict each other, the system you use is massively flawed. You state you have come up with contradictory profiles for people, believed both were correct, but that the dates you used for one were wrong. Then you admit that this makes the system massively flawed. But you still argue that it works.
RE:Undeniably in my little analogy there is what I claimed: a correlation.
I deny it, what correlation is there? I understand correlate to mean:
'to place in or bring into mutual or reciprocal relation; establish in orderly connection'
So, where is the correlation? Two events happen independently of the other, the one does not influence the other, they occur at simply the same time, but are not affected by that time in a mutual way, so how are they correlated?
RE:Wrong. If they were to conclude a causal relationship, they'd be an idiot. A relationship, in and of itself, exists. You could reliably tell the time from one event or the other. You could reliably confirm the occurence of one by the other.
Nonsense. How does a relationship (causal or not) exist if one event is random and completely unrelated to another? Occuring at the same time does not create a relationship, otherwise whatever I do at a certain time would be related to whatever someone else did at the same time anywhere in the world.
Of course you also elipsed out the most important point, that you must consider everything that happens at that point, everything that doesn't and everything that could, before you could even begin to determine if a relationship exists.
If you correlate the position of Saturn at the time of birth to certain personality traits or occurences and claim this establishes a relationship between the two, why do you also not take into account every other stellar object at that particular time? Since you haven't studied every other possible variable in this sense, how can you claim it is the position of Saturn and Saturn alone that makes a difference? Saturn might always be there, but that may be coincidence and it could be the position of Betelgeuse that causes the effect. In the same way, since you do not know what other things could, didn't or did occur at the moment Jim get's up, it would be utterly foolish to conclude a relationship exists between the random passing cars and his awakening or not.
RE:I am not saying that. I realize that this is a standard logical fallacy: "but it would have worked for me" I can't really contradict the results of some of those tests, they seem quite substantial.
Do you practise astrology in a different manner to the tested variety/s?
Do you believe your system works?
Do you believe your system of astrology would pass scientific tests?
RE:At my Saturn return I have a completely typical Saturninan experience: Pain, challenge, contraction. To the extreme, not just some little thing that I interpret with the confirmation bias, but an obvious Saturn return.
And how do you know that it is Saturn that causes this? All you have observed is Saturn, yet there are an almost infinite number of other stellar objects out there you haven't even considered because your bias causes you to focus only on Saturn.
RE:They are obviously just guesses. I dont know how a printing press works either, but that doesnt stop me from reading the newspaper, when it has something worthwhile to say.
But you do know a printing press involves ink, paper, letters right? So at least give us the similar barebones of your knowledge of how your system works please.
And I have to admit to being a little confused, since you stated:
I dont pay any attention to Horary astrology "predictive astrology"
But now you state:
The planetary postions often tell me worthwhile things, like: "Plant the basil tomorrow", "Keep away from the redhead" and "The folks at Skeptico.com will never, ever, believe in astrology."
That sounds like 'predictive astrology' to me, how about you?
As for the rest of your posts, there is little point in dealing with the ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, logical fallacies and false accusations but there is one thing I won't let stand, your utterly reprehensible attempt to paint sceptics as humourless automatons.
As a sceptic and student of science I stand in awe of the majesty of the physical universe and the complex laws that govern it. I marvel at the incredible beauty and diversity of biological life. I stood speechless as my son was born. I cry at great works of art, literature and cinema and feel inspired to create my own humble offerings. I sing when the fancy takes me, I laugh with abandon, I feel the joy of a warm sun and I am moved with passion on a great many subjects. I love my wife and son with a bright intensity that would outshine any star and I intend to die having lived a happy, productive and worthy life surrounded by the family I love, having dreamed dreams I knew were unattainable and having reached for things I knew were beyond my meagre grasp. So don't you dare try and paint your irrationally guided drivel filled life as some ideal I could hope to aspire to if only I was more prone to whimsy, faith, psuedoscience, nonsense, superstition, lies, fallacies and ancient rubbish, for I know I will die with one thought in my mind; that whatever successes and failures I had they were mine and mine alone, and not driven by Saturn disappearing up Uranus.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 02, 2006 at 09:35 PM
Well said, Jimmy! I'm fed up too with the idea that science leaches all the beauty and majesty out of the universe.
I, for one, would like to hear some of these bizarre things that supposedly happen to Gregory. I imagine they're perceived coincidences - a trip over to Richard Dawkin's "Unweaving the Rainbow" and his "PETWHAC" (Population of Events that Would Have Appeared Coincidental) could be of benefit here.
As for the example given, "Saturn warns 'Avoid the redhead'," do we have any counter-examples of what happened when the ringed one's advice was ignored? Was there a celestial finger-wag along with "I warned you that would happen"?
What I like is the idea that just believing in some non-standard psycho-astrology makes weird things happen. I don't undergo weird monthly cycles of wanting to eat more or less - if I did, I'm pretty sure I'd sense some correlation.
As for astrology as psychology, I don't think much of psychology, either - in fact, it's one of my favourite bugbears.
Posted by: Big Al | October 03, 2006 at 01:54 AM
The Hollywood skeptic stereotype just keeps getting more annoying.
Science doesn't know everything, like gregory seems to think it claims. Why does he think that research exists? Why are people like Phil Plait constantly excited when data from a new probe or telescope comes in?
The reason: Scientists love to learn. It's usually the woos out there who like to claim special knowledge that can't be questioned.
The universe is magical enough without magic. We've still got a lot of mysteries to solve, and we don't need to waste time with false mysteries.
Posted by: BronzeDog | October 03, 2006 at 04:47 AM
The universe is magical enough without magic. We've still got a lot of mysteries to solve, and we don't need to waste time with false mysteries.
"A lot" is a tremendous understatement. I agree the universe is rich with mysteries, but I believe science as we know it will never solve them all. The scientists who get the farthest in the quest for answers seem to know this. Science will answer the small questions brilliantly. I don't challenge it's assertions on the material world. However, the big questions, which are the ones most inspiring to me personally, it can't even come close to answering. As I said before, it doent even know to ask them, because they don't concern measurable phenomena.
Noone mentioned my comments on modern physics, the supreme science, and the implications of the unexplainable phenomena it has been uncovering for the past few decades. I wish you would, as it's directly relevant to whether or not the scientific method is truly the supreme authority of what does and does not exist, and additionally, the entire basis of your claims to being able to separate the true from the false in our mysterious world.
Posted by: gregory | October 03, 2006 at 05:37 AM
But now you state:
The planetary postions often tell me worthwhile things, like: "Plant the basil tomorrow", "Keep away from the redhead" and "The folks at Skeptico.com will never, ever, believe in astrology."
That sounds like 'predictive astrology' to me, how about you?
Actually, that sounds like a joke to me. So was "Plagues to follow." I guess I need to remember that your types take everything completely literally, so heres a clarification: The planets do not, in fact, speak advice to me concerning redheads, or internet forums. I do try to plant by the phase of the moon, despite the moon ignoring my pleas for love, but I won't bore you with the details of that obviously irrational behavior. I will submit your responses as evidence, however, that skeptics have an underdeveloped sense of humor.
Theres a lot to respond to here, including a whole bunch of straw arguments of your very own, skeptics. (whom I keep addressing as one mind, and I apologize. If you do the same, I shudder to think of all the 'believers' whom you consider me to be allied with.)
Maybe this is getting tedious. Actually, this is definitely getting tedious. But, I'm going to go through skeptico's response and try to respond logically, if only because it keeps pouring rain, and I can't rock climb. Also, I'd like a chance to use all the Gore Vidal I've been reading and put any caustic wit I may have absorbed into words of my very own. At this point I'm not writing for any of you skeptics, but for the folks just passing by, you know, the ones who arent as completely, perfectly, rational as all of you, the ones who don't have a complete lack of unreasonable thoughts or behaviors like yourselves, which is of course what allows you to attack and analyze the rest of us superstitious humans as so many lab mice, armed with the scalpel of science. Wow! The power of Gore Vidal has already shown his presence. (Jimmy,that long sentence was sarcasm.)
So, I'll get right on the responses, but first:
Posted by: gregory | October 03, 2006 at 05:40 AM
I, for one, would like to hear some of these bizarre things that supposedly happen to Gregory. I imagine they're perceived coincidences
I thought somebody might. I've made a claim, and should offer some evidence to back it up, if I expect any of you to believe me. I will tell you of something that happened to me this summer, just a couple of months ago. Explain it away if you can, I'm curious to hear it, just don't call me a liar, because you'd be wrong.
About two months ago i was sleeping with a girlfriend in Barcelona, Spain. It was early morning, I was dreaming. In my dream I was carrying a beautiful ceramic vessel, shaped like an ancient amphora. I was approaching the edge of a high cliff. When I reached it I held out the vessel, and dropped it over the edge. I watched it fall, in slow motion, and at the moment it shattered on the rocks below, I woke up suddenly. In the exact same instant my friend awoke, with a gasp. Without a word from me, she told me her dream. She had dreamt she had been standing at the edge of a high cliff. She had jumped over the edge, and fallen in slow motion, and at the exact moment of impact on the rocks below, she had awoken. This moment of impact on the rocks, when we both had suddenly awoken, occurred in the exact same instant.
This actually happened, to me,exactly as written.
If there are any mathematicians out there, perhaps they can figure out the chances of two people randomly having the same dream at the same time, the chances that this was a coincidence. They don't seem very plausible, but I'd like to hear what they are. Maybe there's some other scientific explanation that you skeptical kinds will be able to come up with... again, I'd like to hear it. I don't say that fececiously. To me, right now, what happend is obvious: My girlfriend and I shared a dream. I suppose the term would be telepathy.
If someone could offer a logical, rational explanation of how this could have happened, I want to hear it. This kind of event has happened many times in my life, with dreams, and is one of the behaviors that causes me to believe in telepathy, so if someone could explain it scientifically, then they would be helping to bring an irrational believer of unproven phenomena into the spartan camp of reason.
Posted by: gregory | October 03, 2006 at 05:41 AM
One more thing:
I may have thought of a way we can scientifically test astrology. Theres an astrological pattern that I've noticed that should be easily subject to examination. We can check this one out right here and see if theres something to it.
The test os for a planetary relationship between parents and their children that has seemed to me to show up in birth charts by more than chance. Its this: Parents and their children tend to have a sun to sun sign relationship that are at specific angles to one another, either conjunct, in a trine, or opposed, that is, 0 degrees, 120 degrees, or 180 degrees to one another. These are the 3 most significant angular planetary relationships in astrology, so, if truly a phenomena, it would not just confirm some mathematical event, but also a theoretical one. For instance, I am Scorpio, my mother is Taurus (180 degrees) and my father is Cancer (120 degrees). In my case, both of my parents would confirm this phemomena.
Ideally I would like to allow it to be just by sign, that is, an Ares child with parents that were either Leo, Sagitarius or Libra would be a positive result. But if we need to keep the data really tight, we could force the result to be a correct aspect, the angles being within 8 degrees, which is how astrologers define them. (so 112 to 128 degrees would be a confirmation of a trine)
This should be easily testable. Lets do it. We need 3 pieces of information for each entry, a persons birthday and both parents birthdays. Time of birth is irrelevant, though include it if you can. Dont cheat and give false data. Ill do the math, analysis, and post the results, here and on my own site. All will be easily verifiable.
Posted by: gregory | October 03, 2006 at 05:45 AM
Gregory, I'm Scorpio (Nov 13), My mother is Aries - correct spelling! - (April 6) and my father is Capricorn (Jan 10). How does that fit with your theory?
With regard to your cliff dream, as I guessed, we're into coincidences. What does this coincidental dream have to do with believing in astrology? Coincidences happen - it's a fact of life.
Before I could put a numerical probability on it,I'd have to know how many times you'd had a dream with / without your girlfriend having a similar one. I strongly recommend you peruse the Dawkins book I mentioned earlier. It goes into coincidences in great and convincing detail.
As for not being able to tell when you're joking, it's because we get to hear a lot of very bizarre stuff on this site, and the lines get a little blurred.
Posted by: Big Al | October 03, 2006 at 06:13 AM
Gregory:
Re your dream – coincidence. Plus, one or other of you may not have had the dreams exactly as you remembered them – dreams are fuzzy sometimes (as are all memories). In any case, even if this isn’t the explanation, this is still no reason for us to believe in astrology.
You’re long on words but short on anything useful. Explain how it is you know your unique system of astrology is correct although astrology as practiced by most other astrologers doesn’t work.
Posted by: Skeptico | October 03, 2006 at 09:11 AM
RE:Actually, that sounds like a joke to me. So was "Plagues to follow." I guess I need to remember that your types take everything completely literally, so heres a clarification: The planets do not, in fact, speak advice to me concerning redheads, or internet forums. I do try to plant by the phase of the moon, despite the moon ignoring my pleas for love, but I won't bore you with the details of that obviously irrational behavior. I will submit your responses as evidence, however, that skeptics have an underdeveloped sense of humor.
Of course, the possiblity that you fell for a joke in responding also seems to have escaped you. Why is that? I am just a fallible human being who may or may not have seen your joke, but you of course are infallible? But then you also admit you are prone to confirmation bias, and since you like to believe us skeptics take everything literally, bingo, you find us taking everything literally.
Gee, I really did think that astrology had told you that Skeptics were going to be afflicted by plagues.
(gregory, that short sentence was sarcasm).
When you are trying to be a smart arse, you should also try and make sure you aren't doing the very things that you accuse others of doing.
Of course your response should now be to claim that I'm trying to wriggle out of something seemingly foolish by claiming I didn't mean it all along, it was just a joke. Wonder where I heard that before....
But of course when you said it, you really meant it.
Theres a lot to respond to here, including a whole bunch of straw arguments of your very own, skeptics.
Please demonstrate which ones are straw man arguments. And then of course you respond to nothing.
Maybe this is getting tedious. Actually, this is definitely getting tedious.
Oh I couldn't agree more. Here's how it goes, you assert a lot of nonsense, you get called on it, you ignore it and assert some more nonsense, you get called on it, you make some ad hominem attacks, knock down some straw men, claim you are better than skeptics, get called on it, ignore it and go back to avoiding the questions, etc etc. Very tedious, especially as you aren't the first to do this and won't be the last.
(Jimmy,that long sentence was sarcasm.)
NO! Really?
At this point I'm not writing for any of you believers, but for the folks just passing by, you know, the ones who arent as completely, perfectly, irrational as all of you, the ones who don't have a complete lack of common sense or behave like yourselves, which is of course what allows you to attack and analyze the rest of us rational humans as so many cold uncaring robots, armed with the dull butter knife of ancient superstitious belief.
So, here are the questions I asked that you ignored:
1. Why do you consider the first breath the moment of birth?
2. When, why and how was this determined for astrology?
3. Do you consider stillborn births to be births?
4. Is a child still part of the mother after having passed through the birth canal and vagina, yet when the umbilical is still uncut?
5. Even after the first breath?
6. If a foetus is viable after 24 weeks, is it still part of the mother?
7. If someone kills a pregnant woman and both her and the foetus die, do you consider two lives or one life is taken?
8. What is the basis for your assertion that astrology was the first school of thought (or possibly not, you don't seem able to make your mind up)?
9. If you admit that your first result can be confirmation bias, how do you determine that the second, third, one hundredth, eight thousandth readings are NOT confirmation bias as well?
10. What make one reading you thought accurate different to another reading you thought accurate?
11. Do you honestly see nothing wrong with a system that gives the right answer even when you input the wrong values into the system?
12. I deny there is a correlation in your little analogy, what correlation is there?
13. How can you claim it is the position of Saturn and Saturn (or another object) alone that makes a difference in certain astrological traits when you have not considered the position of every other stellar object at the times you believe an effect is caused by Saturn?
14. Do you practise astrology in a different manner to the tested variety/s?
15. Do you believe your system works?
16. Do you believe your system of astrology would pass scientific tests?
17. You do know a printing press involves ink, paper, letters right? So at least give us the similar barebones of your knowledge of how your system works please.
Stand by your convictions and prove us all wrong, please answer the questions.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 03, 2006 at 12:48 PM
Apologies for the double post, but I only thought about this after I posted previously.
About the dream.
First, this kind of subject switch is very common with believers. What does explaining your dream experience have to do with whether your system of astrology works or not?
The simple answer is you hope to show that skeptics can't answer astrology by showing they can't explain the apparently massive coincidence in your dream story. The two are utterly unrelated but your hope is that anyone reading this blog will simply side with you that astrology works because they will remember that the skeptics could not answer your unrelated dream incident.
A similar tactic is used by conspiracy theorists, how can you explain the 9/11 attacks if you can't explain the JFK assassination? This is something I have faced before. The idea is you cast doubt on one topic by casting doubt on another, in the same argument but completely unrelated.
Simple answer, I don't have to explain your dream coincidence because this is not about dreams but astrology.
Second, and regardless of the previous sentence, I'll offer some thoughts on it anyway.
You already admitted you are a rock climber, surprise surprise you dreamt about a cliff. Was the girlfriend into rock climbing or at least aware you were?
Had you both recently visited cliffs? Who doesn't stand at a cliff edge and sometimes think about falling?
If the dream was both vivid and disturbing, and you suddenly awake with a start it is highly probable that one or the other of you woke the other with sudden motion, therefore you both appear to wake at the same time. Anyone who has ever slept in a bed with someone else knows exactly how this happens.
Further to that, given the time passed and your entrenched belief system, you may now be remembering the incident as more simultaneous, coincidental and exciting than it was. Eyewitness testimony and memory are notoriously unreliable and suggestible.
In falling dreams it is well known that the dreamer awakes at the moment of impact, often relatively violently compared to sleep.
Third, you already dismiss explanations before they arrive as not very plausible and yet claim to be open minded and that skeptics have a narrow world view. What bare faced cheek!
Fourth, time to use your tactic. A couple of weeks ago my wife was about to make a phone call, her hand was literally reaching for the reciever, when the phone rang and on the other end was the person she was about to call. This person was not a friend or relative of either of us. Explain how of the 6 billion people in the world this person was the one to ring at this exact moment please, using your astrological belief system. I already know why and how this massive coincidence occurred because I know the background surrounding it. You however don't but I still expect you to explain it. Whatever your explanation is though, its not plausible.
Sound familiar?
This has nothing to do with your dream, it is anecdotal, from memory and therefore subject to distortion, you have no idea of any of the surrounding or preceding circumstances and yet I expect you to answer it and if you can't, I shall claim that your system of knowledge is obviously flawed whether or not you claim your system can explain everything.
Fairs fair. If you could offer a logical, rational explanation of how this could have happened (within the bounds of your belief system), I want to hear it. This kind of event has happened many times in my life, and is one of the occurences that causes me to believe in the reality of seemingly improbable coincidences, so if someone could explain it astrologically, then they would be helping to bring a rational observer of proven phenomena into the spartan camp of irrationality.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 03, 2006 at 01:38 PM
Damn, third post in a row, sorry.
gregory, I am having trouble finding out which sign my dad is according to astrology since some sites I found say scorpio starts on 23rd October and some the 24th, which one is right and why?
In the interests of allowing you to go through some mental gymnastics and prove your system works:
My birth date is 01 October 1976, my dad's is 23 October 1945 and my mum's 30 July 1947. I have no doubt at all that this will eventually turn out to prove you right and all us sad narrow minded sceptics wrong, so fire away. But please show all working and reasoning so we can see how your system works and trust that the final result is correct.
Just to add an extra set of data, my son was born 19 September 2003 and his mother 20 July 1977. So there's two lots of test data to start with.
Remember please show all working and reasoning.
One final thing, why do most astrologers require exact time of birth and some even longitude and latitude but you don't?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 03, 2006 at 09:09 PM
"I have more hunger than normal at the the new moon, on full moons I usually fast. A cancer full moon is inevitably an emotional time. At my Saturn return I have a completely typical Saturninan experience: Pain, challenge, contraction. To the extreme, not just some little thing that I interpret with the confirmation bias, but an obvious Saturn return. In my relationships, basic patterns of how elements react are stongly reinforced. Sex with water signs is always awesome, sex with fire never is..."
Sorry if this has been asked before (I jumped some posts), but do you take note of these things (ie. the full moon, your date's star sign, the position of Saturn) before or after you have these reactions? If it's before, then couldn't your subconscious be causing them? I won't ask about confirmation bias, as it seems to me that your error is not so much a case of forgetting the misses and remembering only the hits (sample trashing) as it is a case of self-fulfilling prophecy.
Posted by: | October 04, 2006 at 02:48 AM
"Nonsense. How does a relationship (causal or not) exist if one event is random and completely unrelated to another? Occuring at the same time does not create a relationship, otherwise whatever I do at a certain time would be related to whatever someone else did at the same time anywhere in the world.
Of course you also elipsed out the most important point, that you must consider everything that happens at that point, everything that doesn't and everything that could, before you could even begin to determine if a relationship exists.
If you correlate the position of Saturn at the time of birth to certain personality traits or occurences and claim this establishes a relationship between the two, why do you also not take into account every other stellar object at that particular time? Since you haven't studied every other possible variable in this sense, how can you claim it is the position of Saturn and Saturn alone that makes a difference? Saturn might always be there, but that may be coincidence and it could be the position of Betelgeuse that causes the effect. In the same way, since you do not know what other things could, didn't or did occur at the moment Jim get's up, it would be utterly foolish to conclude a relationship exists between the random passing cars and his awakening or not."
Skeptico, your posts are usually rational and well thought-out, but this is... well, wrong. If the car passes by the house every day exactly five minutes before the toilet flushes, and this is repeated for, say, 10 years, then wouldn't you (me, anyone) expect the same thing to happen on the first day of the 11th year? So it is *not* random, which means there is a relationship.
Incidentally, the relationship is in fact this: The guy in the car passes every day at 6am because he has to be at work at a certain time. Joe wakes up at 6am because he also has to be at work at a certain time. People in a society measure time the same way, based on the length of a day, and both these events happen once a day, so every day the cycle will repeat.
Not that in a different example the two cycles couldn't *coincidentally* be the same, but there's still the relationship of equal frequencies (even if the equality is due to sheer chance).
I'm not saying that the cycles of Saturn or whatever are actually in sync with any of our biorythms, but if they did, then we would be able to use that. Of course, that would be unlikely, because it would have to be either due to a common cause/logical connection of sorts (which doesn't seem to make sense) or due to coincidence (but then it would have to be an ENORMOUS coincidence).
Posted by: | October 04, 2006 at 03:26 AM
Sorry, anon, but neither of those two factors (car passing and toilet flushing) is random - both are driven by human factors and are utterly independent of each other. If the car driver was sick one day and didn't go to work, the apparent "correlation" would break down.
Posted by: Big Al | October 04, 2006 at 06:31 AM
True. But generally, you'd expect as soon as you saw the car go by, to hear the toilet flush, as they are both repeated every time the earth rotates (for reasons to do with human biorythms, the way we organise our society, etc). When two phenomena depend on the same factor (human), how can one call them independent?
Posted by: | October 04, 2006 at 06:45 AM
OK, both events are driven by the rotation of the earth, but not caused by it. If there was a holiday, the earth's rotation would be just the same, but these two coincident events wouldn't necessarily happen. If the car driver decided to move out of the area, the earth would contine to spin, but the toilet-car coincidence would disappear.
Also, for the example you give, the car driver would presumably pass any number of houses at exactly the same time each day (since he sticks to a strict timeline and therefore presumably controls his car speed with uncanny accuracy), but any coincident action in any of those houses would depend on the occupants being as slavish to the clock as he.
The events are only tied together because these two people are exceptionally dedicated creatures of habit (I for one don't leap out the door for work at exactly the same time each day) with coincident schedules.
Astrologers claim that celestial bodies directly influence human behaviour depending on their positions in the sky. In the toilet/car example, the sun's position in the sky at a given time changes pretty much every day, and what about daylight saving?
The men's lives are ruled by the clock, a human invention, not by the sun, the moon or any other celestial body.
Posted by: Big Al | October 04, 2006 at 07:45 AM
Anon. I am flattered that you might think one of my posts was Skeptico but it was not, any mistakes are mine and mine alone. However, I don't think I am mistaken. I said if a red car passed the house. Not the same red car, just any red car. Hence the event is completely random.
RE:If the car passes by the house every day exactly five minutes before the toilet flushes, and this is repeated for, say, 10 years, then wouldn't you (me, anyone) expect the same thing to happen on the first day of the 11th year? So it is *not* random, which means there is a relationship.
Your expectations have no effect on whether or not a random event repeatedly occurs. Simply because you expect something to happen does not mean it will or that it should. I expect my football team to win and so if they do, does that mean there is a relationship? I am having trouble understanding the thought process that goes from 'I think this is going to occur again tomorrow' to 'Therefore it is not random.'
RE:Incidentally, the relationship is in fact this: The guy in the car passes every day at 6am because he has to be at work at a certain time. Joe wakes up at 6am because he also has to be at work at a certain time. People in a society measure time the same way, based on the length of a day, and both these events happen once a day, so every day the cycle will repeat.
You've made the same mistake as astrologers. I set up a random event, but you have already attributed non-random specifics to it in order to justify a claimed relationship. Or, something happens or you are a particular personality type, and Saturn was there, so the two must be related. Where did I say it was the same guy, where did I say his cycle was the same as Jim's in gregory's analogy? You filled in the gaps in order to create a relationship where none existed because the human mind is programmed to find patterns.
No matter how common an occurence, there is still the probability that it won't occur the next time, so you can infer there is a relationship, but that does not make it the correct inference.
RE:or due to coincidence (but then it would have to be an ENORMOUS coincidence).
And so what? The Universe is a big place, enormous coincidences happen -engage understatement mode- a lot -understatement mode disengaged-.
RE:When two phenomena depend on the same factor (human), how can one call them independent?
Is this another one of those jokes us skeptics just don't get? Are you saying that any human driven phenomena is linked to any other human phenomena, regardless of time, distance and space, ie you can't call them independent?
As for anything else I might want to add, Big_Al pretty much nailed it.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | October 04, 2006 at 09:24 AM
Rock on, Jimmy! Us Brits oughta stick together!
Posted by: | October 04, 2006 at 10:22 AM
I think you're both forgetting we're arguing correlation, not causation. Anyway, I'm moving on:
"Your expectations have no effect on whether or not a random event repeatedly occurs. Simply because you expect something to happen does not mean it will or that it should. I expect my football team to win and so if they do, does that mean there is a relationship? I am having trouble understanding the thought process that goes from 'I think this is going to occur again tomorrow' to 'Therefore it is not random.'"
That's not what I was trying to say. Let me rephrase: If the same thing happened every day for 10 years, wouldn't it be reasonable for someone with no other clues to assume that it will happen just the same the first day of the 11th year? Wouldn't it be objectively considered quite a safe bet? I'm not talking about what a stupid or deluded person would assume, I'm supposing a perfect logician.
"And so what? The Universe is a big place, enormous coincidences happen -engage understatement mode- a lot -understatement mode disengaged-."
Yes, but the solar system only has so many celestial bodies in it! ;)
"Are you saying that any human driven phenomena is linked to any other human phenomena, regardless of time, distance and space, ie you can't call them independent?"
OK, so the description "human" was too general, but that doesn't change the gist of what I was trying to say. When two phenomena are caused by the same source, you can often tell things about one by studying the other. In that sense, they are related.
Posted by: | October 04, 2006 at 12:17 PM
Nameless one: When two phenomena are caused by the same source, you can often tell things about one by studying the other. In that sense, they are related.
"Related" is not the same as "caused by the same source". I am related to my sister, but my birth was not caused by hers. If I study her life, it's nothing like mine.
She was born five years before me, but a mere nine days later - technically, we have the same sun sign. However, we'd both agree that we're nothing like each other. My sister is a fervent woo-believer, and I'm a total skeptic.
Let me offer you an example of apparent correlation: more people report sick on January 2nd than on any other working day.
Is that because of the relative positions of Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, Ophiucus, Taurus, or any other celestial phenomenon? Or is it just because the human calendar says that January 1 is a holiday, and because tradition says, "it's OK to sink a little more drink than usual"?
Your "argument" says absolutely nothing.
Posted by: | October 04, 2006 at 02:48 PM
If the same thing happened every day for 10 years, wouldn't it be reasonable for someone with no other clues to assume that it will happen just the same the first day of the 11th year?
Assumptions don't really enter into it. I'd rather look into "Why do these things seem to happen every year?"
Science tends to be pretty good at answering those sorts of problems. Woo disciplines tend to say "because they do."
Posted by: | October 04, 2006 at 02:52 PM
To anonymous posters:
Can you please enter a screen name when you comment. It doesn’t have to be your real name but it is confusing when you leave no name at all – and there appear to be at least two different anonymous posters on this thread now. Thanks.
Posted by: Skeptico | October 04, 2006 at 02:59 PM