Debunking Astrology besides newspapers Sun Signs

[Frank McLaughlin]

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.

Repeating what you said only this time adding in new stronger adjectives will get you nowhere fast.

Let's agree that you believe astrology to be untrue. I'll try and remember that, one note of yours to the next, you need not restate your position.

Einstein's work was not evidence based in 1905 when he wrote it down and was considered "speculative" by a number of prominent scientists---until 1919 when it was confirmed observationally. That was my point.

Further, Einstein's theory might provide yet to be incorrect.
"A NASA paper describing dark energy says one possibility “is that Einstein’s theory of gravity is not correct.”

If you don't like my Einstein example, no one has a clue about dark energy, where it is, how it works.
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

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.

That something makes no sense to you is not an argument. String theory, many aspects of quantum mechanics, dark energy, lots of stuff makes no sense. I assume the Universe is filled with yet discovered laws of which I know nothing.

What you claim for astrology, that it is "ridiculous" has been claimed for the idea of pre-Clovis man living in North America, continental plate theory, lots of things.

What do it's proponents claim astrology can do, what claims are they making, and what kind of astrology are we discussing? What astrologers are you refuting?

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

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.

And this experiment establishes what? That if you get a bunch of impressionable 18 year olds in a room and provide instruction from a recognized authority figure, you can manipulate them into accepting foolish ideas? For starters, in the experiments you site, as far as I know, the "reading" consisted of a lot of vague psychological statements that most people would find true.

I do like people, am happy and try to help people and so on.

I'll grant you the experiment could be used to establish that some groups of people are gullible. They fall for IRS telephone scammers, stock market ponzi schemes, think the earth is 6,000 years old. Not sure what they has to do with astrology.

And as I told you, the experiment was conducted in my college class and less than half fell for it.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

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.

Not sure where to begin. That someone is a famous astrologer has no bearing on whether they are any good at astrology or that the method of astrology they practice is valid. How exactly does one become a "famous astrologer." Is there some master list? Do you have that name of that famous astrologer?

>birth details and he would send them their horoscope, asking in return only that they rate it for accuracy.

You have established that people are easily fooled, and perhaps you have established that anyone can put out a sign saying that they are an astrologer. But we already know this because (presumably) people read the vague, meaningless horoscopes in their daily newspaper, which they accept as true. The argument is not that people can't be fooled, and it is not that many people who say they are astrologers are just making that claim up having fooled themselves into thinking they have this ability.

>Rudolf Smit, the former astrologer

The purpose of astrology is to gain insight into what may happen in the future, no? So how could Rudolf or his client know whether her chart was accurate the day it was provided? It would be interesting to learn Mr. Smit's credentials and see the chart he used to determine if it held useful information or was similar to what was given to those 18 year old college students (see above).

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

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.



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.

Just about everything you've written here is false, and I don't have the energy. There are many examples of scientists coming up with a theory out of thin air. Einstein initially had no equations or observations. Neils Bohr came up with quantum theory while stepping on a bus. What you write about dark matter is absolutely incorrect.

Of the five papers Einstein wrote in 1905, none were based on observations.

>Astrology is created solely from what the customers want to hear.

And you know this, how?

>There is not a single observation behind anything astrologers come up with.

There is not a single observation behind string theory. No one has seen a string.

>When Pluto was discovered, astrologers were able to include the effect of it in their charts immediately.

I've met with dozens of astrologers and I've never seen Uranus, Neptune or Pluto used in a chart. I don't dispute what you say. There are millions of people who play baseball, and maybe 100 who can throw a 90 mph fastball. There are thousands who claim knowledge of astrology--and who will take your money-- maybe 100 who can produce results.

You'd have to wonder how an astrologer could know what the effect of Pluto is. Did they just make something up?

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

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).

You miss my point which was that many scientific ideas start without evidence---Einstein was a case in point. He had no evidence that first year, arguably no evidence until 1919. There is still very little understanding of dark matter and no proof that this solution will ultimately be valid. There is no evidence for dark matter and very little to next to nothing is understood about it.

Character and personality have little to nothing to do with astrology as I understand it. Agreed, personality and vague meaningless statements ("today is your lucky day, but start early") is what is in the daily newspaper, but just because a newspaper or some guy with an 800 number to call makes meaningless statements and calls those statements "astrology" does not make it so.

>There is no mystery which astrology solves.

"Is nature directed and intelligent" might be one mystery. Phrased another way, does the intelligence of nature extend to what happens in an individual's life? If I get hit in the head by a rock, is that random or is it subjected to laws of nature? Are such things designed?

A mystery is not required, only that a useful result is produced. In the case of astrology, it would be useful to know things about my future to avert danger that has not yet come.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

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.

I've never seen a horoscope that was "feel good platitudes." I've never seen a horoscope that dealt with personality traits. I understand that they exist. I see it in my daily paper (not the great NY Times). Of what use would it be to provide someone the traits of their own personality?

With all due respect, you might want to learn about astrology prior to rejecting it. Is your opinion here on newspaper astrology? The equivalent of watching a 7th grade baseball team, and concluding it is not possible to throw a 90 mph fastball because you haven't seen it done? Anyone can throw a baseball; anyone can hang up an astrology for hire sign.

 

[Delvo]

The evidence Einstein based relativity on was the history of years of experiments concerning two established theories (Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's equations on electromagnetism) that clashed with each other, plus the evidence against luminiferous ether. He came up with it for precisely the purpose of explaining all of that huge accumulated pile of evidence that physicists had built up since before he was born. An accurate value for Mercury's precession was among its predictions, but not the first evidence pointing to it.

Dark matter was discovered, not made up. Physicists saw visible masses being accelerated in ways that the matter they could see could not account for, and "dark matter" was the name they gave to whatever else was causing those accelerations. Even without a theory to explain it, it stood as an observed fact.

Stop lying. You will not fool anyone.

 

[Delvo]

If past tests have proven only that some people can be fooled, then take the next step from there: Proving that something such as astrology really does make accurate predictions/assessments about people or their lives requires producing results from it which go above and beyond what could be explained as "people being fooled". It requires test procedures which eliminate the "people being fooled" option. Astrology has passed no test using such procedures; it has not met such a standard.

If bad astrologers or bad astrological methods get bad results, but don't mean anything about the good ones, then show us where the good ones have been hiding, because so far there don't appear to have been any.

And it will need to stand on its own merits, not rely on fallback excuses for why it can't produce any evidence, especially in the form of lies about scientific ideas which were based on the available contemporary evidence.

 

[Pixel42]

Predicting people's personalities and characters has certainly always been a big part of astrology, hence the believers who are sure they can tell what sign someone is just by talking to them. I suspect a lot of the scientific studies of astrology have concentrated on this aspect of it as it's the easiest to test. There have also, however, been quite a few studies investigating the predictive power of astrology for everything from people's choice of marriage partners to earthquakes. You will find most of them listed here (section 2, and many of section 3),

http://www.astrology-and-science.com/D-rese2.htm

 

[Pixel42]

A mystery is not required, only that a useful result is produced. In the case of astrology, it would be useful to know things about my future to avert danger that has not yet come.

But if it doesn't come, even if you're convinced that's because you changed your plans to avert it, doesn't that make the prediction wrong?

How can you be sure that changing your plans due to a bogus warning from astrology won't actually make your life worse, eg by preventing you from meeting the person who would have been the love of your life?

 

[Garrette]

I've never seen a horoscope that was "feel good platitudes." I've never seen a horoscope that dealt with personality traits. I understand that they exist. I see it in my daily paper (not the great NY Times). Of what use would it be to provide someone the traits of their own personality?

With all due respect, you might want to learn about astrology prior to rejecting it. Is your opinion here on newspaper astrology? The equivalent of watching a 7th grade baseball team, and concluding it is not possible to throw a 90 mph fastball because you haven't seen it done? Anyone can throw a baseball; anyone can hang up an astrology for hire sign.

With all due respect, you might wish to tell us precisely what you think astrology is. What input does it require, and what output does it provide. Then perhaps you could tell us whether you feel there is e idence in support of it and precisely what it is.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I was born on the exact same day and time as Rush Limbaugh (give or take a few minutes) and within a few miles of him. This proves astrology doesn't work.

 

[Garrette]

I was born on the exact same day and time as Rush Limbaugh (give or take a few minutes) and within a few miles of him. This proves astrology doesn't work.

You are, of course, correct, unless advocates redefine astrology to the point it is no longer astrology. They will deny this.

The tenets of astrology are -- like those of homeopathy -- rhetorically malleable. Anecdotes in support of its legitimacy tend to be lacking not only predictive power but also in precision of birth data. Supporters' arguments against proposed tests tend to demand birth data precision to an extent not only practically impossible but also never achieved for their own anecdotes. I have debated someone who swore his retroactive chart for Ghengis Khan was remarkably accurate, yet when I asked him to create my chart so we could compare to my actual life he declined because I could not provide my birth time to an accuracy equivalent to Boulder's atomic click nor my geophysical coordinates down to the specific room in which I was born.

Hence my question to Frank McLaughlin. Without first stating precisely what input the system requires in order to provide precisely what outcomes, the advocates are left with undeserved room to play rhetorical games.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

The evidence Einstein based relativity on was the history of years of experiments concerning two established theories (Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's equations on electromagnetism) that clashed with each other, plus the evidence against luminiferous ether. He came up with it for precisely the purpose of explaining all of that huge accumulated pile of evidence that physicists had built up since before he was born. An accurate value for Mercury's precession was among its predictions, but not the first evidence pointing to it.

Dark matter was discovered, not made up. Physicists saw visible masses being accelerated in ways that the matter they could see could not account for, and "dark matter" was the name they gave to whatever else was causing those accelerations. Even without a theory to explain it, it stood as an observed fact.

Stop lying. You will not fool anyone.

Good of you to sneak in that ad hominem. Makes me want to take you seriously.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

Predicting people's personalities and characters has certainly always been a big part of astrology, hence the believers who are sure they can tell what sign someone is just by talking to them. I suspect a lot of the scientific studies of astrology have concentrated on this aspect of it as it's the easiest to test. There have also, however, been quite a few studies investigating the predictive power of astrology for everything from people's choice of marriage partners to earthquakes. You will find most of them listed here (section 2, and many of section 3),

http://www.astrology-and-science.com/D-rese2.htm

Interesting. I didn't get through the half of it, but I will. Two quick thoughts: (1) the astrology referenced in the abstracts is not anything even remotely resembling astrology as I understand it. Some of the claims seem pretty goofy. There are different types of astrology, and there is a mountain of nonsense parading as astrology.
(2) I could not find anywhere an attempt to determine whether the astrologers being tested for these studies were competent or, at minimum, if intelligent people had observed predictions from these astrologers and were willing to claim, observationally, that there was something here to be studied.

I'm trying to figure out if a guy can consistently hit 100 mph fastballs. My first step is to test to see if he can hit even one fastball. I can't proceed in my study until I've identified competence or at least the appearance of competence. It does me no good to throw 100 mph pitches at my son's 7th grade baseball team and then conduct a peer reviewed study suggesting that fastballs can't be hit. Seventh graders don't qualify for the study. Most astrologers don't either.

I could not find an attempt in those studies to identify competence before proceeding. That is, I have no confidence from what I read that the people identified as "astrologers" for the purpose of these studies were more than goofballs.

I take it as axiomatic that if you contact 100 new age astrologers or mediums or whatever in Sedona, AZ and you tested them, you'd find 99, maybe 100, that had no idea what they were talking about.

It may be that what you linked me to helps establish that generic western astrology is useless. I don't have much opinion on it, but you could convince me. I don't understand how American astrologers get the results they do without adjusting for "precession," the movement or shift of the constellations as they appear in the sky one degree every 70 years, each constellation slipping backward one zodiac sign every 2160 years. (We're in the age of Pisces going to the age of Aquarius, etc.).

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

But if it doesn't come, even if you're convinced that's because you changed your plans to avert it, doesn't that make the prediction wrong?

Free will. No predictive system would claim that the future can't be changed because if that were the case, we'd have a pre-determined universe, events written in stone. In the Vedas (India), there are lengthy treatise about three kinds of predictions: (1) written in stone, can't be changed; (2) avoided or changeable with significant effort; (3) easily avoided or changed.

If predictions were written in stone (instead of as probabilities), and the prediction was that you would be in a rush, miss breakfast and go hungry, you'd be able to make sure you stuffed yourself so you could write to demonstrate the prediction was wrong. Good vacation predicted for this summer? You could deliberately stay home to invalidate the system.

How can you be sure that changing your plans due to a bogus warning from astrology won't actually make your life worse, eg by preventing you from meeting the person who would have been the love of your life?

My manager at work told me that unless I had a report on his manager's desk by Monday morning, I'd be fired. I took that prediction to heart and worked all weekend. As a result, I didn't go to any clubs so I may have been prevented from meeting the love of my life. One of the clubs burned down, so I also may have avoided being burned to death. That is unfathomable, but I got the prediction from my manager and, based on what I do know, used the prediction to keep my job.

I also think the universe is intelligent and meeting the love of my life isn't accidental, but that's another topic.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

With all due respect, you might wish to tell us precisely what you think astrology is. What input does it require, and what output does it provide. Then perhaps you could tell us whether you feel there is e idence in support of it and precisely what it is.

>what you think astrology is.

Why don't you tell me what you think it claims to be and what you think it's practitioners think it is, so we can figure out whether you are objecting to it based on some understanding of it or simply because it does not fit your world view.

By evidence, I assume you mean a formal objective study and the answer is that to the best of my knowledge there is no objective evidence for or against it. I think it should be studied, best place to start would be India. You could identify a dozen experts in the US, but that would take some work.

There is (apparently) a lot of evidence that newspaper astrology ("you are a kind person who likes people") is useless, and I think it would not be too hard to conclude that the majority of astrologers working in new age havens like Sedona, AZ are useless. Studies based on such people are also useless.

There is observational evidence that astrology works, though perhaps not for what is often referred to as western astrology. There are different kinds of astrology. I'm not very familiar with western astrology.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

I was born on the exact same day and time as Rush Limbaugh (give or take a few minutes) and within a few miles of him. This proves astrology doesn't work.

You're not a large gasbag who distorts the truth and can't think clearly?

A few minutes in a chart can make all the difference in the world. It can be sufficient to change the rising sign of the chart, the most significant aspect of any chart, a signification that changes every two hours. 7:50 sure looks like a rounded number. When my son was born the clock in the hospital room was off five minutes.

You would have to establish that you had Rush's birth time accurately recorded. To say nothing of your own. Big if. Rush has given this information out on his radio show? That surprises me. I've seen different birth times for John Lennon and Bill Clinton, they can't all be correct.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

You are, of course, correct, unless advocates redefine astrology to the point it is no longer astrology. They will deny this.

The tenets of astrology are -- like those of homeopathy -- rhetorically malleable. Anecdotes in support of its legitimacy tend to be lacking not only predictive power but also in precision of birth data. Supporters' arguments against proposed tests tend to demand birth data precision to an extent not only practically impossible but also never achieved for their own anecdotes. I have debated someone who swore his retroactive chart for Ghengis Khan was remarkably accurate, yet when I asked him to create my chart so we could compare to my actual life he declined because I could not provide my birth time to an accuracy equivalent to Boulder's atomic click nor my geophysical coordinates down to the specific room in which I was born.

Hence my question to Frank McLaughlin. Without first stating precisely what input the system requires in order to provide precisely what outcomes, the advocates are left with undeserved room to play rhetorical games.

I've never encountered anything remotely like what your experience has been. I don't know much about so called western astrology, but it is goofy beyond all measure to have someone take issue with your time if it is correct within a few minutes (usually) and location is never an issue, even off by 20 miles.