• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Numerology, has it ever been tested?

Mr. Stick

Thinker
Mr. Stick
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
231
Numerology in the form where you apply numbers to the letters of your name, and calculate your number, looks on the face of it so silly, that no serious scientist would waste time on testing it.
On the other hand astrology has been tested, so why not?
Have you ever heard of such a test, and if, what where the results? (Not that I think I'll be surprised)
 
Has numerology ever been tested?

Yes.

What is it's success rate?

No greater than random coincidence. As with other wooish "fortune-telling" methods, the interpretation of results is purely subjective. Any so-called "objective" definitions are (at best) based on tradition, superstition, and hearsay, or (at worst) merely arbitrary characteristics assigned to each numerical value.

In this sense, it is similar to astrology in that an individual's personality can fall into one of nine basic numerological types, numbered 1 through 9, and one of 12 basic astrological types, namely "Aquarian" through "Capricornic".

Woo. Pure woo. Basically harmless as an entertainment device, but potentially hazardous when used for personal gain.
 
Would you get the same numeroligical (?) result if your name was calculated in another counting system? That is, the base-10 system is rather arbitrary. We only use it because we have 10 fingers. If humans devloped 8 fingers instead, we'd have a base-8 system. And wouldn't it also depend on the alphabet? Do you have to use a spelling of your name in the 26-letter Romanized alphabet? If the results do not hold true over various counting systems and spelling systems, I say it's BS.
 
What do you think? Has it been tested?

Of course, _____. It failed, again and again and again and again and again.
 
Mr. Stick said:
Numerology in the form where you apply numbers to the letters of your name, and calculate your number, looks on the face of it so silly, that no serious scientist would waste time on testing it.
On the other hand astrology has been tested, so why not?
Have you ever heard of such a test, and if, what where the results? (Not that I think I'll be surprised)
Click to expand...
Just a quick Google. I can't find any positive tests. Only this.
 
Monza said:
Would you get the same numeroligical (?) result if your name was calculated in another counting system? That is, the base-10 system is rather arbitrary. We only use it because we have 10 fingers. If humans devloped 8 fingers instead, we'd have a base-8 system. And wouldn't it also depend on the alphabet? Do you have to use a spelling of your name in the 26-letter Romanized alphabet? If the results do not hold true over various counting systems and spelling systems, I say it's BS.
Click to expand...


Wasn't the Babylonian system sexagesimal?
 
However, if you sum your name, multiply by three, add your local zip code, and subtract your social security number, then take the resulting number to the nth power of pi, with n determined by a die roll, then convert each resulting number pair to base 26, then convert those number pairs to letters, you will get gibberish.
 
Monza said:
Would you get the same numeroligical (?) result if your name was calculated in another counting system? That is, the base-10 system is rather arbitrary. We only use it because we have 10 fingers. If humans devloped 8 fingers instead, we'd have a base-8 system.
Click to expand...

This is actually a common misconception. Our number system (probably) has nothing to do with the number of digits we have, that's just a coincidence. We actually use base 10 because of nothing more than pure chance. Early civilisations used a wide variety of different bases. Base 12 and base 16 were fairly common, base 60 was used by the Babylonians and has carried to today in time and angles (it really was base 60 and not just an extended base 12). Some civilisations, like the Romans, didn't really have a base at all, while others used mixes of several different ones.

The fact that we, mostly, use base 10 now means nothing except that that happened to be the one that caught on. Which is a shame really, since base 12 and base 16 would be much better.
 
I dont usually hold much truck with any of this sort of thing, for most of the reasons mentioned so far in this thread, but I once encountered a numerlogist at a party. Now this person didn't know me, and I had actually never met anyone attending the party before that night

Anyway she did whatever numerolgist do with names and numbers, and came up with a very uncanny personality reading of me as well as making a few very accurate predictions about my life up to that point. Now the personality thing I could put down to simple observations, but the events in my life she described where not the typical broad things, like you have lost someone close to me. She correctly described the seperation with my wife at the time, although I was still wearing my wedding ring, and we had not even told our families - She also told me the exact size of my family, my current one, as well as the one I grew up in.

I still would never spend money on something like this, but as I said I was very impressed with the performance. And as I said I was there alone, among complete strangers so it wasn't a case of doing some research on me before hand.
 
MG1962 said:
Anyway she did whatever numerolgist do with names and numbers, and came up with a very uncanny personality reading of me as well as making a few very accurate predictions about my life up to that point. Now the personality thing I could put down to simple observations, but the events in my life she described where not the typical broad things, like you have lost someone close to me. She correctly described the seperation with my wife at the time, although I was still wearing my wedding ring, and we had not even told our families - She also told me the exact size of my family, my current one, as well as the one I grew up in.

I still would never spend money on something like this, but as I said I was very impressed with the performance. And as I said I was there alone, among complete strangers so it wasn't a case of doing some research on me before hand.
Click to expand...

This is based on the answers you get from assigning numbers to letters in certain words, and adding them up, right? So, would the numbers have changed if she'd done the calculations some time before, when you were still together with your wife? Do the numbers change when you have another child?

It may have seemed spooky at the time, but it sounds like a cold-reading to me, you remember the hits and forget the misses, and don't realise what signals you're giving out as she makes her guesses.
 
Cuddles said:
This is actually a common misconception. Our number system (probably) has nothing to do with the number of digits we have, that's just a coincidence. We actually use base 10 because of nothing more than pure chance. Early civilisations used a wide variety of different bases. Base 12 and base 16 were fairly common, base 60 was used by the Babylonians and has carried to today in time and angles (it really was base 60 and not just an extended base 12). Some civilisations, like the Romans, didn't really have a base at all, while others used mixes of several different ones.

The fact that we, mostly, use base 10 now means nothing except that that happened to be the one that caught on. Which is a shame really, since base 12 and base 16 would be much better.
Click to expand...

. . . . . .
ETA: nevermind. I found some ideas on wiki. I am assuming that you are suggesting that the system of measurements as well as the counting system be in one of those bases.
. . . . . . . .


Why would base 12 and 16 be better now and why would they be better for early civilizations? I understand that grouping things into dozens allows easier division by 3 and 4, but 12 things are 12 things in any base system.
 
Last edited:
Cuddles said:
This is actually a common misconception. Our number system (probably) has nothing to do with the number of digits we have, that's just a coincidence. We actually use base 10 because of nothing more than pure chance. Early civilisations used a wide variety of different bases. Base 12 and base 16 were fairly common, base 60 was used by the Babylonians and has carried to today in time and angles (it really was base 60 and not just an extended base 12). Some civilisations, like the Romans, didn't really have a base at all, while others used mixes of several different ones.

The fact that we, mostly, use base 10 now means nothing except that that happened to be the one that caught on. Which is a shame really, since base 12 and base 16 would be much better.
Click to expand...

But base-10 and 10 fingers makes so much sense. Now I have to look this up to verify that you are right. Though your example of angle measurement is a good one. I have never heard of other civilizations using different counting systems, though that is nothing I would particularly research or remember.

For now, can we at least agree that numerology is bunk?
 
Monza said:
For now, can we at least agree that numerology is bunk?
Click to expand...

And I can prove it.

Many years ago, I had sent an excellent chick through for a PA jobto one of the All Black coaches in his daily business, where he owned a large pharmaceutical company. Some other dodgy bucket-shop had also sent through a top PA candidate and he couldn't choose between them. (Not a good sign for a selector)

He asked his numerologist which one was the better suited to him and she picked the other one!

Who lasted about four weeks.
 
Monza said:
I have never heard of other civilizations using different counting systems, though that is nothing I would particularly research or remember.
Click to expand...


The IT crowd count in binary and hexadecimal.

They're an odd race. :D
 
Monza said:
And wouldn't it also depend on the alphabet? Do you have to use a spelling of your name in the 26-letter Romanized alphabet? If the results do not hold true over various counting systems and spelling systems, I say it's BS.
Click to expand...


That's what I was wondering. Would Sheik Yerbouti's name in Arabic give the same results as his name in English?

And can numerology be applied to any name or word? Would it tell me my adjective is well-adjusted? Or maybe the Empire State Building needs to move to another city to find happiness.

The truth is out there. We only need to calculate it. :cool:
 
Cuddles said:
The fact that we, mostly, use base 10 now means nothing except that that happened to be the one that caught on. Which is a shame really, since base 12 and base 16 would be much better.
Click to expand...


This probably neither here nor there, but I've read that the names of numbers in a language indicates the original numbering system used by that culture. In English, the first 12 numbers have unique names before the numbers take on ten-base names: thirteen (3+10), fourteen (4+10), so ancient speakers of English probably used a base 12 numbering system.
 
This all reminds me of my favorite quote I heard in a Fortran class years ago...

"There are only 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom