Ipecac said:
We know that astrology has been around for thousands of years. We also know that the people who lived thousands of years ago, and who presumably invented astrology, had little understanding of the way the world really worked. They had little understanding of medicine, geology, astronomy, chemistry, agriculture, physics . . . the list goes on. Finally, proponents will say that the mechanisms of astrology are "inexplicable and mysterious."
So, given this, HOW THE HECK COULD THESE PRIMITIVE PEOPLE POSSIBLY HAVE FIGURED IT OUT AND HAVE BEEN RIGHT?!?
Aha, you are so right. This is one of the key problems with Astrology, I agree. How did they figure it all out? I have asked several people that question, and they all say there are ancient texts that explain it, but no one has yet been able to come up with one. Although several have promised to do so.
In my view, this is one of the (two) best approaches for debunking astrology. Ask them how all these detailed rules were worked out. How did the ancients figure it all out? Because, if you can't explain how they worked it out then it must be just
made up. And it is one of the best ways to approach it because they will never be able to demonstrate how it was worked out. That is because it
was just made up. Of course, people who don't believe in the scientific method won't be impressed by this.
The other approach, and IMO an even more compelling one, is that
it doesn't work! But you will need to work hard to get anyone to listen to this. For all the believers' criticisms of skeptics being "closed minded", you won't find a more closed minded group than believers in astrology. They are completely closed-minded to any evidence that it doesn't work.
Anyway, this is what you have to do. You have to explain that people think it works for two basis reasons, namely:
The Forer Effect: vague and general personality descriptions that people think are uniquely applicable to themselves without realizing that the same description could be applied to just about anyone, and
Confirmation Bias: which means that people tend to notice and give greater importance what confirms something, rather than what contradicts it.
You then explain that to test astrology to see if it works, you need to control for these two biases. The way to control for such biases is with the randomized double-blind test. Then you ask them: "if you were given your chart, and those of two other random people, and you weren't told which was yours, would you be able to pick out your own chart?" When they say yes, you ask them why no one is ever able to do this with a greater probability than pure chance (1 in 3).
The best example of such a test was performed by Shawn Carlson, and published in the journal “Nature”. The San Francisco chapter of the National Council for Geocosmic Research recommended the 28 professional astrologers who took part, and (with Carlson), designed the tests. Two tests were performed:
#1: Astrological charts were prepared for 83 subjects, based on natal data (date, time and place of birth), provided by the subjects. Each subject was given three charts: one chart based on their own natal data, and two charts derived from natal data of other people. Each subject was asked to identify the chart that most correctly described themselves. In 28 of the 83, the subject chose their own chart. This is the exact success rate expected for random chance. (The astrologers predicted that the subjects would select their own chart more that 50% of the time. )
#2: 116 subjects completed California Personality Index surveys and provided natal data. 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. Out of 116 trials, the astrologers chose the correct CPI 34% of the time. This agrees with the random chance prediction of 1 of 3 trails producing a correct choice. (The astrologers predicted that they would select the correct CPI profiles in more that 50 per cent of the trials. )
Conclusion by Carlson:
"We are now in a position to argue a surprisingly strong case against natal astrology as practiced by reputable astrologers. Great pains were taken to insure that the experiment was unbiased and to make sure that astrology was given every reasonable chance to succeed. It failed. Despite the fact that we worked with some of the best astrologers in the country, recommended by the advising astrologers for their expertise in astrology and in their ability to use the CPI, despite the fact that every reasonable suggestion made by advising astrologers was worked into the experiment, despite the fact that the astrologers approved the design and predicted 50% as the "minimum" effect they would expect to see, astrology failed to perform at a level better than chance.
"I have not yet received a serious scientific challenge to the paper. The newsletter of the American Federation of Astrologers Network published a response in January (1986). I was very disappointed to see that it largely consists of personal attacks. Its few substantive criticisms are attributable to ignorance of the experiment, of the CPI, and of basic scientific methodology."
Source: Shawn Carlson - A Double-blind Test of Astrology, “Nature”, 318, 419, 1985
I ordered a back copy from "Nature" and keep photocopies of it on my coffee table. Great fun watching the believers ignore it.
Although this is only one test, whenever similar well designed, tests are performed, the results are the same. So I also have a printout of
these tests as well.
As Claus points out, belief in this retarded garbage is so deeply ingrained it is hard getting anyone to look at facts such as these. But don't give up – some people are on the fence and will be persuaded. A friend of mine, who won't give up all of his woo woo beliefs, nevertheless completely "got it" when I told him that people tend to act up to their supposed astrological personality characteristics – ie they tend to use their astrological chart as an excuse to behave badly, rather than taking responsibility and perhaps changing something about themselves. That just pushed my friend's button. In conjunction with the "it doesn't work" tests, he now gets as irritated as I do with the astrology junkies.
) "being a part of community is important to you at this time" is really not much help .......
