Debunking Astrology besides newspapers Sun Signs

[Maurice Ledifficile]

John Stossel once did a television program debunking astrology. He collected birth dates and times from all of the students in a college class and told them an astrologer would give each of them a detailed reading based on that information. Each student was presented privately with their reading and were then asked how accurate they thought the reading was. Some students previously were skeptical and others were believers, but after each student's reading, virtually EVERY student thought the astrologer nailed the reading for them.

Unfortunately, each student had received the same reading, one done based on the birth date and time of the notorious serial killer, Ed Kemper. The look on the students faces when presented with this information was classic.

It wasn't a new idea. Works every time. Derren Brown did it as well, and I'm pretty sure Randi did it a few times. I Could be wrong about Randi.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Forer did it first.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect#Forer.27s_demonstration

They should name that effect after him. Forer effect. Has a nice ring to it.
☻☺☻

 

[Pixel42]

Randi did it in a Nova documentary, but it's called The Forer Effect after the first person who did it.

 

[Whatfor]

yeah, I get that is the basic rebuttal, but it is a major moving of the goalposts. The basic problem with sun sign astrology is that there is simply no mechanism that would allow earth's position relative to the Sun to influence personality. Tossing in a few dozen more heavenly bodies does nothing to address this very basic problem of "how", and nothing from astrology data has given science reason to suspect there is any unknown "how".

I take that back. Its not even a moving of the goalposts, its a complete red herring - a smoke screen.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Just channeling the argument a "pro" astrologer would make. There are a heck of a lot of problems they just wave away while they're confirming their biases.

 

[Whatfor]

Pixel42, thanks for the link.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

The simple mathematics of the concept are pretty much broken on a base level.

If the position a celestial object millions of miles away effects you, a plane passing overhead would in theory effect you many degrees more.

Jupiter's effect if you are suggesting a gravity like force should be stronger than that of a plane, but your point is taken as the effect from the earth under your feet would be paramount.

However, this claim is true only if the effect from Jupiter behaves like gravity or at least becomes weaker with distance. It is not true if the astrologer's claim is that the position of Jupiter (along with the other planets) provides a map like indication as to the effects of nature on one's life.

The assumption is that nature at a fundamental level is intelligent. The planet provides a map indicting how an aspect of that intelligence will act.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

[...]
The assumption is that nature at a fundamental level is intelligent. The planet provides a map indicting how an aspect of that intelligence will act.

That's one huge unsupported assumption. Evidence?

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

John Stossel once did a television program debunking astrology. He collected birth dates and times from all of the students in a college class.

It wasn't a new idea. Works every time. Derren Brown did it as well, and I'm pretty sure Randi did it a few times. I Could be wrong about Randi.

Astrology may or may not be bunk, but Strossel's tv program bordered on the ridiculous. He used young, gullible college students and provided a reading that consisted of vague feel good platitudes, which a room of 19 year olds accepted.

One wonders who is more gullible the kids or the people accepting Strossel's "study" as providing useful information. I once did some magical spoon bending for my son's 7th grade class, and I told them it was real, and they believe it. What does that tell us? 7th graders are gullible. Nothing about spoon bending.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Astrology may or may not be bunk, but Strossel's tv program bordered on the ridiculous. He used young, gullible college students and provided a reading that consisted of vague feel good platitudes, which a room of 19 year olds accepted.

One wonders who is more gullible the kids or the people accepting Strossel's "study" as providing useful information. I once did some magical spoon bending for my son's 7th grade class, and I told them it was real, and they believe it. What does that tell us? 7th graders are gullible. Nothing about spoon bending.

Nope. Astrology is bunk. Stossel's demonstration clearly shows that people assessing their own readings will give any pat reading a high accuracy rating.

Platitudes is all astrology ever produced. Also, telling children you can bend spoons with real magic is despicable.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

That's one huge unsupported assumption. Evidence?

Einstein's claim about the effect of gravity on light was one huge unsupported assumption. One for which there was no evidence until 14 years after Einstein stated that mass bends light. "To the scientists of his day his words amounted to scientific heresy." [PhysLink.com]

The guy who thought up dark matter, stuff no one has ever seen, no one knows where it is, what it consists of, how it acts---that guy has no real evidence.

Ideas begin without evidence. If you insist on evidence before you sail around the the earth, you'll never leave home.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

Nope. Astrology is bunk. Stossel's demonstration clearly shows that people assessing their own readings will give any pat reading a high accuracy rating.

Platitudes is all astrology ever produced. Also, telling children you can bend spoons with real magic is despicable.

Agreed that you think astrology is bunk, though we don't know on what basis. The only thing Strossel's demonstration clearly shows is that people, when confronted by a laughably bad experiment worked on 18 year olds, will allow themselves to be manipulated so they can agree with what they already believe.

BTW, that astrology experiment was conducted by a college professor in one of my psychology classes, and about half the class fell for it. The reading we were given was plain stupid.

So why did this "experiment" work? Not because the kids were stupid but because they were going along with what they were told by a person in a position of authority, a professor who had been providing reliable instruction to them all semester.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Einstein's claim about the effect of gravity on light was one huge unsupported assumption. One for which there was no evidence until 14 years after Einstein stated that mass bends light. "To the scientists of his day his words amounted to scientific heresy." [PhysLink.com]

The guy who thought up dark matter, stuff no one has ever seen, no one knows where it is, what it consists of, how it acts---that guy has no real evidence.

Ideas begin without evidence. If you insist on evidence before you sail around the the earth, you'll never leave home.

Utter nonsense. Einstein's work is evidence-based, as opposed to purely speculative fairy tales like astrology. Quote mining will get you nowhere fast.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Agreed that you think astrology is bunk, though we don't know on what basis. The only thing Strossel's demonstration clearly shows is that people, when confronted by a laughably bad experiment worked on 18 year olds, will allow themselves to be manipulated so they can agree with what they already believe.

BTW, that astrology experiment was conducted by a college professor in one of my psychology classes, and about half the class fell for it. The reading we were given was plain stupid.

So why did this "experiment" work? Not because the kids were stupid but because they were going along with what they were told by a person in a position of authority, a professor who had been providing reliable instruction to them all semester.

Astrology is bunk because nothing about it makes any sense, and none of it has been shown to do what the proponents claim it can do. It is worse than bunk. It is a ridiculous, risible concept.

How about some evidence for any of the claims astrologers make? Got any? No? What a surprise.

 

[arthwollipot]

Agreed that you think astrology is bunk, though we don't know on what basis. The only thing Strossel's demonstration clearly shows is that people, when confronted by a laughably bad experiment worked on 18 year olds, will allow themselves to be manipulated so they can agree with what they already believe.

BTW, that astrology experiment was conducted by a college professor in one of my psychology classes, and about half the class fell for it. The reading we were given was plain stupid.

So why did this "experiment" work? Not because the kids were stupid but because they were going along with what they were told by a person in a position of authority, a professor who had been providing reliable instruction to them all semester.

Your argument would be more effective if that were the only time that this experiment had ever been performed. In fact it has been performed many times, with many different audiences. I've done a slightly modified form of it myself, with exactly the same result.

 

[Pixel42]

Your argument would be more effective if that were the only time that this experiment had ever been performed. In fact it has been performed many times, with many different audiences. I've done a slightly modified form of it myself, with exactly the same result.

My favourite reproduction of the Forer Effect was done by Michel Gauquelin. He got a famous astrologer to draw up a detailed horoscope for a real person (he told him the birth details he gave were his own, but they were actually those of a mass murderer). He then put an ad in a newspaper asking people to send him their birth details and he would send them their horoscope, asking in return only that they rate it for accuracy. He got the usual result.

Rudolf Smit, the former astrologer who created the astrology and science website I linked above, reproduced the effect by accident. He'd drawn up a detailed horoscope for a client, and went through it with her with the usual successful results. He then discovered as he was leaving (she corrected the name he'd been calling her) that he'd picked up the wrong horoscope; the one he'd had such a positive reception for was someone else's. It was the experience that planted the first seed of doubt in his mind.

ETA: more importantly, when the Forer Effect is eliminated by blind testing, the result is unequivocal: give five people five different readings, one of which is theirs, and they can correctly identify it no more often than would be expected by chance.

 

[steenkh]

Einstein's claim about the effect of gravity on light was one huge unsupported assumption. One for which there was no evidence until 14 years after Einstein stated that mass bends light. "To the scientists of his day his words amounted to scientific heresy." [PhysLink.com]

Maybe it amounted to heresy but it was not unsupported from the beginning. It had been apparent for some time that there was something wrong with Newtonian physics. Einstein had to fiddle around with his equations until they matched the orbit of Mercury that did no longer fit Newton with sufficient accuracy. In other words, Einstein had evidence that something needed to be done, and he came up with a theory that fitted the old and the evidence.

The guy who thought up dark matter, stuff no one has ever seen, no one knows where it is, what it consists of, how it acts---that guy has no real evidence.

Completely wrong. Nobody came up with the idea out of thin air. Dark matter was observed through the movement of galaxies, and we know exactly where it is. A few years later, astronomers were able to map dark matter from the effect on light. We have seen it, we know where it is, we know how it acts, but we do not know what it is.

ETA: Scientific theories do not get created from nothing, but are the result of observations. Astrology is created solely from what the customers want to hear. There is not a single observation behind anything astrologers come up with. When Pluto was discovered, astrologers were able to include the effect of it in their charts immediately. They had not noticed that something was missing before.

 

[Pixel42]

The results of the Michelson Morley experiment and measurements of Mercury's orbit created mysteries that Einstein's theories solved. Measurements of the speed at which the stars of a galaxy orbit its centre created a mystery that has not yet been solved; dark matter is just the name we have provisionally given to the solution. Measurements of the rate of expansion of the universe created a mystery that has not yet been solved; dark energy is just the name we have provisionally given to the solution.

There is no mystery which astrology solves. We know what creates differences in character and personality (a mixture of nature and nurture). We know why people think they see correlations between astrological horoscopes and reality (cognitive biases).

 

[lpetrich]

Astrology may or may not be bunk, but Strossel's tv program bordered on the ridiculous. He used young, gullible college students and provided a reading that consisted of vague feel good platitudes, which a room of 19 year olds accepted.

Has anyone ever heard of a horoscope that was something other than feel-good platitudes? Especially a horoscope with falsifiable assertions.

Let's now consider what we can test for correlations with horoscopes.

Personality features ought to be a good one, since those are internal, even if they can be affected by outside circumstances.

The Big Five personality traits^WP are something that psychologists have decided is a reasonably objective description of how our personalities vary. Those traits are:

• Openness to experience (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious)
• Conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. easy-going/careless)
• Extraversion (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved)
• Agreeableness (friendly/compassionate vs. analytical/detached)
• Neuroticism (sensitive/nervous vs. secure/confident)

with acronyms like OCEAN and CANOE.

There are several alternative models, like Alternative five model of personality^WP (Neuroticism–Anxiety, Aggression–Hostility, Impulsive Sensation-Seeking, Sociability, Activity), HEXACO model of personality structure^WP (Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience), 16PF Questionnaire^WP (Warmth, Reasoning, Emotional Stability, Dominance, Liveliness, Rule-Consciousness, Social Boldness, Sensitivity, Vigilance, Abstractedness, Privateness, Apprehension, Openness to Change, Self-Reliance, Perfectionism, Tension), and Facet (psychology)^WP, more complicated models, like expansions on the Big Five. These include dividing them up into subtraits and creating a matrix of hybrid traits. The hybrids are of all combinations of positive and negative versions of the traits.


About a different aspect of psychology, Moral foundations theory^WP divides moral concerns into moral-foundation dimensions, with different people having different strengths of those dimensions. A recent version has six: Care, Fairness, Liberty, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Thing is, you must apply Forer effect for astrologers themselves.

Imagine a guy, who heard about this astrology .. he thinks it's ******** .. but he finds a book about it, and he is 'smart enough' to understand the math.
Then he makes a horoscope for himself .. and wow, it fits !
Then he make it for people he know .. and compared to what he thinks about the persons, it fits !
So he shows them to the persons .. and they say it fits too !
The new astrologer now believes astrology works .. and he will also tell you it's based on skeptical approach and experiment.

 

[Pixel42]

Thing is, you must apply Forer effect for astrologers themselves.

Imagine a guy, who heard about this astrology .. he thinks it's ******** .. but he finds a book about it, and he is 'smart enough' to understand the math.
Then he makes a horoscope for himself .. and wow, it fits !
Then he make it for people he know .. and compared to what he thinks about the persons, it fits !
So he shows them to the persons .. and they say it fits too !
The new astrologer now believes astrology works .. and he will also tell you it's based on skeptical approach and experiment.

Yes, that's exactly how Rudolf Smit convinced himself.

http://www.astrology-and-science.com/A-pass2.htm

My life, my personal disaster

Abstract -- Rudolf Smit, founder of this website, describes how, as a teenager, he was an ardent amateur astronomer with many technical books on astronomy in his library. Nearly all of them stressed that astrology had no scientific validity, which led him to believe that astrology was nonsense. Later, in his first job, he argued with his boss about astrology, and was told that he should first study astrology before opening his mouth. So he read about his sun sign and was astonished to find how accurate it was. He then had his birth chart read, not once but twice, and in each case was astonished to find how well it fitted his character and circumstances. From then on astrology became his passion. He taught himself how to read charts for his friends (everything fitted perfectly), formed the first society of professional astrologers in the Netherlands (this was in 1977), and set up as a part-time professional astrologer (he soon had many clients and the future looked rosy). But one day he accidentally used the wrong chart for a client, who was nevertheless happy with the reading. Two years later it happened again. Very puzzling -- weren't horoscopes supposed to be unique? Later, with a computer, he spent several years testing the statements made in astrology books, especially statements about events, and found to his horror that almost all could not be confirmed. But he had many happy clients so why worry? Then in 1984 came the crunch. He became aware of the many ways in which clients could be convinced that astrology was true even if it wasn't. And all of them were used by him. Just being warm and caring would do the trick. Worse, any chart would do, hence also the wrong chart. So his happy world of astrology collapsed. He closed his practice and fell into a clinical depression that lasted three years. Without astrology his life had lost its meaning. Afterwards he regained his interest and became editor of the research journal Correlation for six years, trying to find out which statements of astrology were true. Then in 2000 he set up this website for those who wish to know more about scientific findings in astrology, but always remaining sympathetic to its beauty and appeal. This is a true story that anyone interested in astrology should read.