Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Ah, yes! That is certainly a wonderful vintage. Could I interest you in some exotics? Old Hawaiian, Alaskan Island, and Guam are available, no conversion to UTM required!
Ah, yes! That is certainly a wonderful vintage. Could I interest you in some exotics? Old Hawaiian, Alaskan Island, and Guam are available, no conversion to UTM required!
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Will you wear your polyconic Madonna outfit?
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
I believe that one was benchmarked. A planar projection just didn't do it justice.
yairhol
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,401
Guys & Gals....please stop.
This thread is going down hill and it didn't start from a high enough point either.
It's obvious that the OP doesn't have an understanding of what the challenge is all about. He thinks it is a challenge of who knows more about a subject rather than if that subject can withstand the double blind test which is the standard in acquiring scientific knowledge.
Randi has stated a million times before that he doesn't care for explanations, theories or whatever. Just prove that your paranormal claim can stand double blind tests, and the $1M is yours.
Regards,
Yair
This thread is going down hill and it didn't start from a high enough point either.
It's obvious that the OP doesn't have an understanding of what the challenge is all about. He thinks it is a challenge of who knows more about a subject rather than if that subject can withstand the double blind test which is the standard in acquiring scientific knowledge.
Randi has stated a million times before that he doesn't care for explanations, theories or whatever. Just prove that your paranormal claim can stand double blind tests, and the $1M is yours.
Regards,
Yair
Why is that "crap"?
i only take criticism from those who studied the subject.
Do not pretend to know the subject cause I would find easily
I studied astrology. In fact, I have outdone several professional astrologers.
How do you distinguish a horoscope from a self-fulfilled prophecy, then?
But dont ask me to read for cause im no expert. James Clayton seems to be good from the free knowledge he provides,. I found him more accurate than the average astrologer
If you are no expert, how are you capable of spotting who has studied astrology and who has not?
How do we know which are among the 5%?
How did you come to that number?
Why are other astrologies wrong?
no its not paranormal,yet Randi told Young that it was.Full stop.
Astrology is, by its very definition, paranormal.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
Been there, done that.
Me: I don't believe in astrology.
Woo: Oh, that's just 'cos you're ignorant about astrology.
Me: Name the signs of the Zodiac in the correct order.
Woo: ...
Me: Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces.
Woo: ...
Me: Now, please tell me where I would find the First Point of Aries.
Woo: Er ... Aries?
Me: Oh, you're so naive.
Great fun, but it doesn't prove anything. What we want is proof that astrology works.
Me: I don't believe in astrology.
Woo: Oh, that's just 'cos you're ignorant about astrology.
Me: Name the signs of the Zodiac in the correct order.
Woo: ...
Me: Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces.
Woo: ...
Me: Now, please tell me where I would find the First Point of Aries.
Woo: Er ... Aries?
Me: Oh, you're so naive.
Great fun, but it doesn't prove anything. What we want is proof that astrology works.
Last edited:
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Carefully saved in a skeptic folder under "how to react if somebody tell me that astrology work"
.Tricky
Briefly immortal
Oh you're no fun anymore. We're just killing a little time until (if?) IDunno get's back to answer some questions and respond to the posts we've made. Would you prefer kittens?
But Young's Challange is typical of those who like to rail against Randi. It is as if they are saying, "I'm not here to prove anything to you, but suppose I ask you to do something totally unrelated? How would you like that, huh?" Another common thread in their "challenges" is that they are always judged, rather than simply having to do what they say they can do, and they are never independantly judged.
For example, take a look at Victor Zammit's challenge in which the "claimant" has to prove that there is no afterlife. The judging is done by 'The Committee.'
Mojo
Mostly harmless
As far as determining whether astrology works, it doesn't matter how it works. You tell us what you claim it does, and that can be tested. I regularly use technology while having very little understanding of how it actually works (for example, the technology I'm using to post this). The fact that I don't know much basic electronics doesn't prevent me from telling whether or not my computer is working: I just observe the computer and check whether it is doing what it is supposed to do.
The evasion is yours.
kieran
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2004
- Messages
- 294
How on earth is this just another evasion? This is the crux of the $1m challenge - it is never the "how" that is being tested, just whether or not it works. Demonstrate it works, then we can investigate how ... what's the point of investigating "how" first? Ridiculous!
So do skeptics have to learn the intricate nuances of all the unfounded claims? After all, why should astrology be a special case. Do we have to learn how to prepare homoeopathic remedies before we can ask if they have any effect at all? Why not just insist that memorizing a telephone directory is a requirement before a claim can be doubted? There seems to be as much point.
ChristineR
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2006
- Messages
- 3,180
I freely admit I don't understand much astrology. Please explain to me why a test like this will fail--or if it doesn't fail, explain to me how you feel about an easy one million dollars.
An astrologer is given basic information about ten people, such as date, time and place of birth. The ten people are chosen to have comparable (but not identical) dates, times and places of birth.
(The reason for this is that one can infer a lot from even that minimal information. For example, someone born in Berlin in 1930 is likely to have had certain profound and life changing experiences. Any other information the astrologer might need, such as gender, also should be reflected in constraint of the test subjects, i.e. if the astrologer wants to know gender all subjects are going to be male.)
The astrologer writes ten horoscopes using his knowledge and talents which far surpass my own. The ten people are given the ten horoscopes and asked to pick their own.
If astrology works, the results should be better than chance. Will this test fail? Please explain.
An astrologer is given basic information about ten people, such as date, time and place of birth. The ten people are chosen to have comparable (but not identical) dates, times and places of birth.
(The reason for this is that one can infer a lot from even that minimal information. For example, someone born in Berlin in 1930 is likely to have had certain profound and life changing experiences. Any other information the astrologer might need, such as gender, also should be reflected in constraint of the test subjects, i.e. if the astrologer wants to know gender all subjects are going to be male.)
The astrologer writes ten horoscopes using his knowledge and talents which far surpass my own. The ten people are given the ten horoscopes and asked to pick their own.
If astrology works, the results should be better than chance. Will this test fail? Please explain.
That's been tried before. Results were what you'd expect from chance.
In my case the answer is usually no. Much like astrology in fact.
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
How do you control for self bias of the subjects?
calebprime
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 13,001
You only need to show an above-chance agreement between what the subjects chose and what subject the astrologer intended.
Just agreement.
As I understand it, nothing above chance has been observed.
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
What I'm saying is that in an environment where everyone is casually exposed to the same basic astrological projections, both the subjects and the astrologers would tend to assign the same general traits to a given birth date. I find it astounding that no astrologer has been able to use this to show that astrology "gets it right".
The MDC rules do not allow subjective tests so the subjects will not be allowed to match themselves to the readings. How I believe this has been handled is that the subjects are allowed to fill out a questionnaire and the astrologer then matches the birth dates to the responses. This allows the JREF staff to filter out questions that would correlate with well known astrological projections.
Mockery!! The answer when there is no answer.
Unfortunately im finding out pretty fast scientists care a lot more about their Bank accounts than I thought, so Im not surprised about shams like the Carlson test
But of course humanistic, benevolent astrologers are not interested in money or its making. That is why an astrologer refuses to charge a fee for his services.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
I believe ChristineR covered that possibility when she suggested that the participants have birthdates, times, and places that are fairly well clustered. For example, all participants are Gemini, so that the whole "social butterfly" description applies equally to all. However, their birthdates may be a week or so apart, such that calculated locations of celestial bodies will be different enough to generate differences in the charts. That old Mercury and the Moon can move quite some distance relative to the background sky in just a day or two!