Split Thread General astrology discussion with Astro Teacher

[AvalonXQ]

Okay, guys, I think I've figured out what Astro Teacher is trying to say here.

Astrology, according to AT, doesn't deal in predictions. It deals in chances. Essentially, you go to AT, AT says "Hey, this may happen".
It's a very handy system for AT, because he/she is never straight-up wrong. If it DOES happen, then "wow, you're amazing!" If it doesn't, then "well, he said that it only MIGHT happen, so I guess he was right that it might not!"
While it's impossible to disprove, it's also quite a dishonest way of thinking.

If that is all that AT is saying, then it's certainly not beyond testing. Even probabilistic claims can be tested, and are tested often.
In order for the transit to be meaningful, the event in question would need to be more likely to happen than we would expect from chance.
If we can find an experienced astrologer willing to do so, we can have the astrologer tell us that something is more likely than it would usually be, by a certain margin, many times in a row. We can then count the number of successes and failures of the established event, compare the results to chance, and see if the transits appeared to have any actual positive effect on the odds.

 

[Nonpareil]

If that is all that AT is saying, then it's certainly not beyond testing. Even probabilistic claims can be tested, and are tested often.
In order for the transit to be meaningful, the event in question would need to be more likely to happen than we would expect from chance.
If we can find an experienced astrologer willing to do so, we can have the astrologer tell us that something is more likely than it would usually be, by a certain margin, many times in a row. We can then count the number of successes and failures of the established event, compare the results to chance, and see if the transits appeared to have any actual positive effect on the odds.

Perhaps, but I doubt that AT actually deals in "this is more probable than usual" so much as a simple "this might happen".

 

[AvalonXQ]

Perhaps, but I doubt that AT actually deals in "this is more probable than usual" so much as a simple "this might happen".

But if she doesn't mean "this is more likely to happen around this specific period of time than it normally would," what value does it have?

 

[Hokulele]

Testing of Astro Teacher's claims is being attempted here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5265614#post5265614

 

[Astro Teacher]

In fact you have spoken for them. You have essentially called all astrologers that do what we all know as "predictions", frauds, and science agrees with you. All their claims have been disproven, and thereby the field of astrology itself.

No, but that is the problem with your so-called assessment. You define science as if it is one giant monolithic ship with one thought like the Borg or something - "resistance is futile." Please.

If you stop with the one-line simple thinking on this subject and accept the fact that not all astrologers are "frauds" - as you have done in your comment above, then state, rather ignorantly if I might add, that "all their claims have been disproven," so, by effect astrology is disproven, you are living in a dreamworld of your own making. Astrology has never been disproven at all which is why so many rail on and on to do so. Even those who have severely critiqued astrology became astrologers themselves.

Try seeing that to actually get anywhere on this subject is the difference between seeing the difference between a boar of a thought like the one you just made, and coming to study the much deeper nuances and complexities of applied astrology.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Try seeing that to actually get anywhere on this subject is the difference between seeing the difference between a boar of a thought like the one you just made, and coming to study the much deeper nuances and complexities of applied astrology.

If the nuances and complexities of astrology cannot produce anything testable, what value is there in using them to help plan your life?
If there is value in using them to help plan your life, why can't we test this?

 

[SumDood]

No, try not to see it that way. It was "tested" by the actions of the person who stole my client's keys in that climate. The transits show what the "inclinations" are, and there was a range of times and dates over a period of time that indicated to me that this was what was going on. Only my experience and knowledge of transits narrowed that range down enough to see if this was indeed the potential, and, it was.

So how often does the 'potential' of one of your predictions turn out to be true?

You can be right, and still be wrong, and can be wrong and still be right. There are nuances and complexities of astrological forecasting that cannot be debated akin to some of the "pro wrestling comments" from some seen on this subject. I am always amazed at how some skeptics seem to think that they alone have Carte Blanche on what constitutes "truth" and "evidence" when many times the "truth" is staring them in the face.

You predicted where and when the thief would show up. I don't need Carte Blanche truth and evidence to test your prediction. Either the thief shows up in the right place at the right time or he doesn't.

The only problem with this is that some skeptics are not knowledgeable about the subjects to be expert enough to see some truths because to them there is only material in the world that must show all to be true relevant to their own present limited senses of what constitutes truth. In effect, they are thinking "inside the box" - not out of it, and in order to understand, and explore the nuances and complexities of the world one must think outside of the box.

So how exactly do you measure truths that don't exist in our 'material' world?

 

[Astro Teacher]

So how often does the 'potential' of one of your predictions turn out to be true?



You predicted where and when the thief would show up. I don't need Carte Blanche truth and evidence to test your prediction. Either the thief shows up in the right place at the right time or he doesn't.



So how exactly do you measure truths that don't exist in our 'material' world?

I don't measure truths. I accept them for what they are. and leave them alone. In effect, don't try to fix what ain't broken. Life is less complicated that way.

 

[Nonpareil]

But if she doesn't mean "this is more likely to happen around this specific period of time than it normally would," what value does it have?

Absolutely none, but therein lies the contradiction. AT claims that the effects of astrology aren't measurable in any way, yet they matter.

No, but that is the problem with your so-called assessment. You define science as if it is one giant monolithic ship with one thought like the Borg or something - "resistance is futile." Please.

If you stop with the one-line simple thinking on this subject and accept the fact that not all astrologers are "frauds" - as you have done in your comment above, then state, rather ignorantly if I might add, that "all their claims have been disproven," so, by effect astrology is disproven, you are living in a dreamworld of your own making. Astrology has never been disproven at all which is why so many rail on and on to do so. Even those who have severely critiqued astrology became astrologers themselves.

Try seeing that to actually get anywhere on this subject is the difference between seeing the difference between a boar of a thought like the one you just made, and coming to study the much deeper nuances and complexities of applied astrology.

So to believe in astrology, you must first accept that astrology is real?

Sorry, circular reasoning is no better than bare assertion.

 

[Astro Teacher]

Testing of Astro Teacher's claims is being attempted here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5265614#post5265614

Thank you Hokulele, you've been kind and straight up. Send me a PM so we can work out the nuances when you are ready.

 

[Astro Teacher]

Absolutely none, but therein lies the contradiction. AT claims that the effects of astrology aren't measurable in any way, yet they matter.



So to believe in astrology, you must first accept that astrology is real?

Sorry, circular reasoning is no better than bare assertion.

Aha, a good question from you finally. You are now on ignore probation Pure_Argent. And, no, do not accept astrology as real at first. Nor at face value. Study it, get yourself an astronomical ephemeris, learn to read it while also reading some serious astrological materials and observe yourself.

Assume nothing.

Believe nothing.

Just work, study, and observe.

Now, if you can do that you will then be actually performing the true scientific method which is exploration and discovery - not sitting on your behind saying, "Tell me it ain't so Joe."

 

[AvalonXQ]

I don't measure truths. I accept them for what they are. and leave them alone. In effect, don't try to fix what ain't broken. Life is less complicated that way.

"The unexamined life is not worth living." -Socrates

Testing our assumptions, teasing our truths, and trying to understand IF and WHEN things in our world behave in certain ways -- these are the things that humans do that separate us from animals. These are the principles we uphold in order to better ourselves, to hold a candle to the darkness, and to separate truth from fiction.

 

[Nonpareil]

Aha, a good question from you finally. You are now on probation. And, no, do not accept astrology as real at first. Study it, get astronomical ephemeris, read some serious materials and observe yourself. Assume nothing, and believe nothing. Just work, study, and observe.

Now, if you can do that you will then be actually performing the true scientific method which is exploration and discovery - not sitting on your behind saying, "Tell me it ain't so Joe."

I've studied it. I read your links. And I have come to believe that they are one hundred percent bull.
The distance between any given human and any given stellar body are so great that neither their gravitational nor electromagnetic fields can have any effect. Both forces follow the inverse square law for distances, so the total force exerted is essentially x over infinity, which is zero. Therefore, there is no effect.

 

[Fiona]

Because it is something only advanced astrologers would know is true. How am I to prove that I saw that transiting Mars was going to rise at that particular location at that particular time on the eastern horizon, and that this symbolized the individual who was up to no good?

The client didn't care how I did this, he just wanted his keys back, but he didn't know that his friend had stolen his keys and wanted to rip him off. I knew this, but how to prove it unless we were actually there at that particular time and place?

The client could have listened to his girlfriend who wanted him to spend the night at her place, if not for his astrologer saying no, we have to be here at this particular time and place and then wait.

See the problem of testing? It was the client's choice to tell his girlfriend that he could not stay with her that night (which led her to believe that he was cheating until I had to impress upon her that he was not and needed to be with me at this particular time) and so he made a free will choice. Now, if he decided to say hell no and go and stay at his girlfriend's place that night, he would have been ripped off.

Things often work like this. It is all about choices and decisions on the individual's part. But the transits, the "climate" is still there nonetheless. Transits are always on time - all the time. Most of the problems in the world come directly from people's own ignorance to transits and the poor choices and decisions they make.

I am sorry: I do not see at all how this renders the matter untestable. In this case there was a very specific prediction and that prediction turned out to be true. So either it would have been true whether the native went to the apartment or went to his girlfriend's: or his decision would have affected the decison of the bad guy. I have not seen anything in AT's posts so far to suggest that this is a schrodinger's cat. So I am assuming it would have been true wherever the native was. Any independent observer would have been able to confirm the prediction was accurate, surely?

If astrology is able to make predictions like this then they are eminently testable. Even if most of the time the predictions are dependent on the native's action it is reasonable to suppose that some of the time natives will not be so perverse as to pay for advice and then resolutely refuse to follow it: so one would expect such predictions to be fulfilled at a rate better than chance. One could improve that rate by testing on people who agreed to follow the advice given: this is not as if we are saying they agree to be "good" or "more decisive" or anything vague like that. This is very specific: be at a certain place at a certain time and x will happen

What is the problem with testing this?

 

[Neally]

If you stop with the one-line simple thinking on this subject and accept the fact that not all astrologers are "frauds" - as you have done in your comment above, then state, rather ignorantly if I might add, that "all their claims have been disproven," so, by effect astrology is disproven, you are living in a dreamworld of your own making.

Look, I get it. You think that all other astrologers are frauds, not the ones like you:

Real Astrology does not work like this. I continue to make this point. Most people falsely believe that the whole purpose of an "astrology reading" is to tell the person something about themselves. This is not true, and any so-called "astrologer" who says so is not a true astrologer.

All this is practical: to help direct the client to their own goals, and to be real about it, adding none of the superfluous junk astrology that is so common these days with all the charlatans and wannabes who say they are "astrologers" when they surely are not.

The only "test" needed for junk astrology is to simply watch for those who make general "personality readings" their bread and butter. Know this: you are wasting your money, and more importantly, your time.

So all the tests in which the astrologers failed are not real astrologers like you and since your particular version of astrology can't be objectively tested, it can never be disproven. Again, your definitions. You have self defined "true"astrology but the vast majority of what is commonly practiced as astrology has been quite conclusively found to be bogus quackery in multiple controlled tests with the astrologers themselves agreeing the the protocol.

 

[SumDood]

I don't measure truths. I accept them for what they are. and leave them alone. In effect, don't try to fix what ain't broken. Life is less complicated that way.

Is it the word 'measure' that is the issue? Lets try some others:

So how exactly do you discover truths that don't exist in our 'material' world?

So how exactly do you experience truths that don't exist in our 'material' world?

So how exactly do you view truths that don't exist in our 'material' world?

So how exactly do you know truths that don't exist in our 'material' world are actually true?

So how exactly do you know truths that don't exist in our 'material' world actually exist?

Is it some sort of 'second site' thing? Is it opening one's mind to the interpretation of astrological charts? I know you say its complicated, but can you dumb it down for a layperson such as I?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

You can do this with long-range weather forecasting, which can be tested. This has been done before, and found to be accurate. This is Natural Astrology, the one area that I believe that astrology can be tested because we can see the percentage rates of accuracy and non-accuracy in the physical world.

Would you please give some documentation of this? I spent 7 years working for the Canadian Weather Service and would be delighted to see this to be true?

<snip>

 

[Foster Zygote]

So to believe in astrology, you must first accept that astrology is real?

Sorry, circular reasoning is no better than bare assertion.

"You would believe in Jesus if you would just believe in Jesus." Where have I read that before?

 

[Hokulele]

Thank you Hokulele, you've been kind and straight up. Send me a PM so we can work out the nuances when you are ready.

No problem. I would prefer to keep as much of the discussion as public as possible (other than the test participants), as many people can help look for weaknesses in the protocol. Although posting in a moderated thread tends to be a little more tedious, what with the waiting period for posts to get approved and all, I think it would be best to keep all discussion relating to the protocol and your requirements in the thread I linked.


ETA: Whoops, you are already over there. Never mind!

 

[Astro Teacher]

I am sorry: I do not see at all how this renders the matter untestable. In this case there was a very specific prediction and that prediction turned out to be true. So either it would have been true whether the native went to the apartment or went to his girlfriend's: or his decision would have affected the decison of the bad guy. I have not seen anything in AT's posts so far to suggest that this is a schrodinger's cat. So I am assuming it would have been true wherever the native was. Any independent observer would have been able to confirm the prediction was accurate, surely?

If astrology is able to make predictions like this then they are eminently testable. Even if most of the time the predictions are dependent on the native's action it is reasonable to suppose that some of the time natives will not be so perverse as to pay for advice and then resolutely refuse to follow it: so one would expect such predictions to be fulfilled at a rate better than chance. One could improve that rate by testing on people who agreed to follow the advice given: this is not as if we are saying they agree to be "good" or "more decisive" or anything vague like that. This is very specific: be at a certain place at a certain time and x will happen

What is the problem with testing this?

To see this you would have to have open eyes first. You cannot see what is there blinded, and there are many who are so blinded by their own preconceptions that they cannot see - and do not want to. Who wants to test under those conditions?

People will believe whatever they want to believe. It will always be that way until things change, and when that change comes - and it is coming I can assure you - it will be much too late to say "give me a 89,289th chance to get it right."

You cannot "test" natal astrology, not with the current tools of conventional science. You can see correlations in people's lives, from past observations, but there is no way to replicate this in a lab. Period.

You cannot force a square into a round hole, no matter how much you want to try to do so. Some people can't see this because they do not want to.

They have their problems, they don't "believe" in this, they don't "believe" in that, and so on. When the hammer falls on someone else's finger it doesn't look so bad. When it falls on your finger, it's worse than bad. Why even waste your time? What is good for the goose is not for the gander and so on with human beings. Why even bother?