Please don't kill kittens.
ChristineR
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2006
- Messages
- 3,180
Yep, I know. What I don't understand is whether or not astrologers agree that this is a fair test. Clearly some have, but some argue it's not and I couldn't tell you why.
ChristineR
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2006
- Messages
- 3,180
Actually I see what you're saying about just giving someone a "classic Gemini" reading. Oddly, I'm not aware of anyone having taken advantage of this. However as Hokule points out I've actually already covered this problem in my broad description and we can simply use all Geminis.
The test itself is not subjective. The participants match themselves to a reading; the number of hits is counted; the number of hits is a number between zero and ten, hits above seven counts as a success. You're actually testing a number between one and ten. The rules do not preclude participants from making subjective judgments in arriving at the score. A psychic might be only 70% sure about his guess of wavy line and might be allowed to arbitrarily skip that card. The only restriction would be practical ones to keep the test from going all night in an attempt to get enough solid guess. Likewise the astrologer can arbitrarily exclude a subject whose chart might be very volatile, so long as he can produce ten usable charts in a reasonable time.
I don't see anything wrong with a questionnaire in theory, but in practice it might be a very long questionnaire. It all really comes down to what the astrologer thinks will work. As I don't understand astrology, I'd like the astrologer to comment on this.
headscratcher4
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,776
As many as 5% get it right? Why that's fantastic!
Clearly, it is a "science" you can trust. Just think if only 5% of pilots had it right, or surgeons, or pharmacists, or ... I guess what I'm saying is that it is a pretty useless activity if only 5% of the practitioners/believers know what they're doing.
How come about 80-90% fits me, and I'm aquarius? Just curious and if any astrologers could answer I'd be happy to de-bunk it.
Reminds me of a conversation I had in a car with a colleague.
We were listening to BBC Radio4's "Beyond Belief" (Great way of getting a rant started) and some person claimed that "athletes were more likely to be born under the sign of mars".
"Well I'm glad he was using good old western astrology, and none of that oriental claptrap", was my colleague's response.
Oh darn - should I give up on the crystals too then? (j/k)
Thank you for the link - I'm going to save it, translate it, print it and hand it out to a few selected people...
How come about 80-90% fits me, and I'm aquarius? Just curious and if any astrologers could answer I'd be happy to de-bunk it.
well aquarians are social but they need a lot of space. they dont like to follow the rules of the tribe
that was the double blind carlson test which was meant for psychologists not astrologers. No wonder they failed.
Hello.
Critics like this one will read into my challenge whatever they like - anything other than take it. This one is trying to imply it is a test of Astrology, yet I clearly state it is a test of a critics knowledge of Astrology and the quality of that knowledge. They like to criticise, but at the end of the day they have no working knowledge of the subject so their protestations are based on hearsay and assumption, the very thing my challenge is designed to expose.
Regards
James Young.
First Stop Astrology.
Critics like this one will read into my challenge whatever they like - anything other than take it. This one is trying to imply it is a test of Astrology, yet I clearly state it is a test of a critics knowledge of Astrology and the quality of that knowledge. They like to criticise, but at the end of the day they have no working knowledge of the subject so their protestations are based on hearsay and assumption, the very thing my challenge is designed to expose.
Regards
James Young.
First Stop Astrology.
http://www.firststop-astrology.com/Explorer/Ascending_signs.htm
if you want to really test astrology read this lionk with the ascendant signs description. if you dont know your ascendant give me birth date,time and place of birth or go to www.astro.com and get yours free.
note that your sun sign, the way you see yourself and what you value may conflict with what your persona or ascendant says.
ill post sun signs description in the next post
if you want to really test astrology read this lionk with the ascendant signs description. if you dont know your ascendant give me birth date,time and place of birth or go to www.astro.com and get yours free.
note that your sun sign, the way you see yourself and what you value may conflict with what your persona or ascendant says.
ill post sun signs description in the next post
ChristineR
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2006
- Messages
- 3,180
that was the double blind carlson test which was meant for psychologists not astrologers. No wonder they failed.
Which test? The questionnaire test could be done by a psychologist, but the test I proposed requires an astrologer to draw up a star chart.
You haven't answered my question, which is to explain to me why a person cannot pick his own profile out of a pile of profiles. All that stuff about ascendants and houses sounds pretty cool, but I would like to know what use it has. If you could, say, give me some insight into another person's personality, that would be nice. But I would expect that I could pick my personality profile out of a pile of profiles, or at least narrow it down to a handful of choices.
milesalpha
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 4, 2006
- Messages
- 375
Seems he doesn't much care for the tougher questions. Maybe his chart told him he was outmatched.
i have no time now foir so many questions.
the carlson test was a double blind test.
why dont you watch the videos?
Uh, so I'm both social AND reclusive? Actually, let's take an entire paragraph from your post:
Yes, I do have the gift of humour and I love a laugh - not on the expense of others though (two out of three just from the first sentence - not bad). I do have gut feeling for witty comments which do live things up and those things come natural. So you see, a tremendous lot of this is me - scary isn't it?
However, this was for gemini and I'm an aquarius - or by judging from the chart provided by CFlarsen, capricorn.
I'm so very confused now...
Tricky
Briefly immortal
If you are talking about the test that Young was proposing, it is in no sense a double-blind test.
Most of your links no longer work. In fact, it looks like the James Young video has been taken down from everywhere it was posted. I wonder why...i why dont you watch the videos?
Last edited:
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Tirdun
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
- Messages
- 637
i have no time now foir so many questions.
the carlson test was a double blind test.
why dont you watch the videos?
And why won't you understand that Randi's test was valid?
It doesn't matter HOW X works UNTIL X is shown to work.
Replace X with voodoo, astrology, phrenology, or calisthenics. In order for something to be shown to work you have to eliminate subjectivity, chance and fraud.
For example, every dowser believes s/he can find water. Every dowser has a different widget for doing so and Every dowser has a dozen theories as to why and how they supposedly do their water witching. But ultimately it doesn't amount to anything if dowsing doesn't WORK. If Bob knows ten times more about dowsing than Fred it amounts to worthless trivia. Even if Bob has a fancier stick, has a more complicated theory and a bigger water bucket, it's still of no value until Bob proves he can find water.
So we get it. You know astrology. Wonderful! Prove that it works in a scientific way and everyone here will not only have to eat crow, we'll have to sit and listen to you expound endlessly on the inner workings of the astrological machine.