• 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.

carlson test and debunking randi

idunno said:
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;)
Click to expand...

December 12th, 1969. 11:00am. Liverpool hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Go for it. I'll return a blow-by-blow analysis of your analysis.
 
idunno said:
i have no time now foir so many questions.
the carlson test was a double blind test.
why dont you watch the videos?:mad:
Click to expand...

If you have time to find links and post them, and ask us to look at them, then you have time to answer the questions.

If you can demand our time, then we can demand yours.
 
If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody's there to hear it, who gives a ****? The fact that this challenge has gone unanswered doesn't mean everyone's "using every tactic to avoid the challenge"; it's much more probable that nobody cares enough to satisfy the ridiculously unreasonable demands of a person who offers nothing.

The logic here seems to go along the lines of, "I define astrology as walking down a sidewalk. Anyone who disagrees with me doesn't know what astrology is. Now that we have established that astrology is real (as people obviously walk on sidewalks), let me tell you about your future."

It's not up to us to know what one person thinks astrology is. If James Young wants to prove that astrology is anything more than BS, the burden of proof is on him. He needs to make the claim, and he needs to give the proof to back it up.
 
Tirdun said:
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.
Click to expand...


Very old tactic….pontificate about why you are right, then pull the “I don’t have time right now” disappearing trick.

What idunno/James Young does not get is exactly what you (Tirdun, and others) said...it is not about how much he knows, but can he use that knowledge/ability in a controlled scientific test.
 
Last edited:
I think I'm getting this. Astrology is the scientific study of the stars and other heavenly bodies visible from the earth, from the point of view of persons standing on earth. It has some predictive power in that it predicts the seasonal positions of the constellations, etc. All astrology's conclusions and facts are subsumed by the science of astronomy, which is not hampered by the standing-on-earth point of view.

Astrology is still interesting enough to make a hobby for some people, and it has a certain charm, not unlike the people who weave their own homespun cloth and sew it into civil war uniforms with bone needles. Like antique sewing methods, it also has had an influence in certain historical events, and sometimes an amateur enthusiast may be able to point out details that even a trained historian doesn't see.

However astrology cannot make predictive or meaningful claims about personalities, or future events (other than positions of astronomical bodies and the like).

I could be misunderstanding this, but really this is about what I'm getting out of Mr. Young's posts.
 
ChristineR - Umm.....close anyway :)

Astronomy is the scientific study of astronomical objects (ie. using your example, scientifically determining constellation positions).

Astrology places significance, beliefs, or other interpretation to astronomical objects/events and applies them to human affairs.

James Young contention that Astrology is a science is technically correct, as science can be defined as a body of knowledge (American Heritage Dictionary). However, as Astrology does not adhear to the scientific method, pseudoscience is a better definition.

Personally...I do not see why James Young, and other Astrologers, do not take the JREF Challange; what better way to formally establish Astrology as a hard science, then to prove it in a scientific setting....
 
idunno said:
http://www.firststop-astrology.com/YouTube/Video1.htm

as youi casn see at the bottom of the link the carlson test is a sham
Click to expand...

All I can see from that link is that the page is no longer in use. So maybe you could explain why you think the Carlson test is a sham. Here's a link to a description of that test: http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/AstroSkc.htm

There's an account of it here as well: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/what_do_you_mea.html

To sum up: Shawn Carlson did two tests:

1. 83 People had to try to identify the reading that corresponded to them. Each person was given three readings, and were asked to identify the one that best described them. Only 28 of the 83 people chose the reading that actually corresponded to their birth data, which is exactly what would happen if people just chose a chart at random.

2. 116 people filled out personality questionnaires and the astrologers had to try to match the filled out questionnaires with birth data. For each person, an astrologer was given three personality profiles and had to try to identify which of the profiles corresponded to the person's birth data. Here again, the results were just as if the astrologers had made random guesses.

The tests were well designed, in collaboration with the astrologers. There have been many others since: in a while I'll post some more links.
 
idunno said:
astrology shows trends.
Click to expand...

Well, astrology professes to show a whole array of things, which doesn't make it any more meaningful to us, since none of the things that it professes to show can be substantiated.

But you are right, idunno; astrology is made up completely of finding nebulous correlations and trends between any two things. Image for a moment: we gather an amazingly large group of people, find out their birth signs, and calculate the smoking rate for each sign. We find, hypothetically, that Virgos smoke 50% more than any other birth sign. You'd find that meaningful, wouldn't you?

The problem is, if you take another group of exactly the same amount of people and take the exact same steps, you won't get the exact same results. The second time, Aries might smoke 90% more than any other birth sign.

Astrology not only takes none of this into account, it washes itself of responsibility the moment it is proven incorrect.
 
Locknar said:
ChristineR - Umm.....close anyway :)

Astronomy is the scientific study of astronomical objects (ie. using your example, scientifically determining constellation positions).

Astrology places significance, beliefs, or other interpretation to astronomical objects/events and applies them to human affairs.

James Young contention that Astrology is a science is technically correct, as science can be defined as a body of knowledge (American Heritage Dictionary). However, as Astrology does not adhear to the scientific method, pseudoscience is a better definition.

Personally...I do not see why James Young, and other Astrologers, do not take the JREF Challange; what better way to formally establish Astrology as a hard science, then to prove it in a scientific setting....
Click to expand...

True, I have seen many people claim that astrology has interpretations that are relevant to human affairs. But you can look at this two ways. One is just to study the supposed meanings for their historical and literary interest, in much the same way that people study images of the virtues in medieval art. Another is to argue that there is a some sort of actual, objective value to be found in these readings.

James Young has said that the tests we propose are tests of psychology, not astrology. He proposed his own tests of astrology, and it appears to be a test of antique astronomy.

As I said, I don't know much about astrology, but I do know a fair amount about tarot cards.

I could write a test which asked questions like "Why is the hanged man card between strength and death?" and if you couldn't give me a satisfactory answer, I would feel justified in saying you don't know anything about tarots. But I don't claim that tarots actually do anything other than provide artistic and historical interest. They will not win anyone Randi's million.

Strength is the most powerful of the "earthly virtues" in the tarot. Might makes right, and it trumps love, political power, etc. However the traitor can overcome even strength by his dishonorable action. But even he will succumb to death in the end.


So here we have two ways of testing the tarot: one on it's on merits as an antique art form, another as psychology. Both fields of study are can be referred as "tarot card studies', but one is art history, the other is pseudoscience.

So what I'm getting from Mr. Young's comments is that astrology is not a form of insight into human affairs, as he says that tests involving human affairs are psychology tests, not astrology tests.
 
ChristineR - The "catch" here is that HE needs to define he wants tested and the testing methods; it is not up to “us” to do anything of that.

Young has suggested folks take his test to prove they have sufficient knowledge in Astrology. As others have pointed out, having knowledge in a subject area does not make it real…there are lots of folks that are experts on the Harry Potter universe, does not mean it exists.

If everyone hands down agreed that Young is the worlds greatest expert on Astrology…that does not make Astrology real.

If Astrology is a true science, I’d think it easy to test….if it is just woo woo, then I’d think it impossible to test as there will always be an excuse as to why the test failed.
 
Locknar said:
ChristineR - The "catch" here is that HE needs to define he wants tested and the testing methods; it is not up to “us” to do anything of that.

Young has suggested folks take his test to prove they have sufficient knowledge in Astrology. As others have pointed out, having knowledge in a subject area does not make it real…there are lots of folks that are experts on the Harry Potter universe, does not mean it exists.

If everyone hands down agreed that Young is the worlds greatest expert on Astrology…that does not make Astrology real.

If Astrology is a true science, I’d think it easy to test….if it is just woo woo, then I’d think it impossible to test as there will always be an excuse as to why the test failed.
Click to expand...

i just asked james why he removed the links. im waiting for his reply.

i simply play the role of the journalist. a skeptic with believers and a believer with skeptics:boxedin:
 
idunno said:
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.
Click to expand...

Given you (idunno) posted this in first person vs stating it was a quote or forward, I assume you and James Young to be one in the same.

If this is true, then your claim "i simply play the role of the journalist. a skeptic with believers and a believer with skeptics" is misleading. As your site First Stop Astrology shows you are clearly a beliver.
 
Last edited:
idunno: I address this question to James Young. If you aren't James Young, could you pass this on to him? Thanks.

Mr. Young,

It seems your refusal to take the MDC, and the creation of your own test in response are based on your assertion that critics of astrology are not qualified to make such criticisms. Why? Why is it neccessary for people to have a comprehensive knowledge - comprehensive as judged by your subjective standards and of astrology as you personally define it - to be skeptical of it? Is the concept of astrology used by skeptics, such as UncleFeedle and responders in this thread, so different from your own? If so, I fail to see why you should even be using the term "astrology" at all.

A perfectly reasonable definition of astrology is: a system that it is claimed can predict people's personalities and predict the future based on the position of the planets and certain constellations at any given time. I am sure this is the concept of astrology that is being used by your critics. I believe it is reasonable because it is the only one I have ever encountered.

What is your definition of astrology?

Do you claim to be able to accurately predict peoples' personalites using astrology? Do you claim to be able to accurately predict the future using astrology?
If not, what do you claim astrology allows you to do?

Yours Sincerely,

Kell
 
Last edited:
Here's another interesting test: http://www.skepsis.nl/astrot.html

It was done in 1994-95. 44 astrologers participated, many of them experienced professionals.

The astrologers were given the birth data of seven test subjects. They were also given copies of questionnaires filled out by these seven people. The questions in the questionnaires (about education, vocation, hobbies, interests, main goals, personality, relationships, health, religion, and dates of important life events) were suggested by the astrologers themselves.

The task of each astrologer was to match the questionnaires to the birth data. The results were just what would be expected if each astrologer had chosen at random.
 
Locknar said:
Given you (idunno) posted this in first person vs stating it was a quote or forward, I assume you and James Young to be one in the same.

If this is true, then your claim "i simply play the role of the journalist. a skeptic with believers and a believer with skeptics" is misleading. As your site First Stop Astrology shows you are clearly a beliver.
Click to expand...

no i simply sent his post quickly cause i haD LITTLE TIME.;)
 
This is what I "read aloud" whenever I have a newspaper and someone asks me to read their horoscope:

"Certain shortcomings in your upbringing and education cause you to read personal meaning into the movement of stars and planets."

QED
 
arthwollipot said:
December 12th, 1969. 11:00am. Liverpool hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Go for it. I'll return a blow-by-blow analysis of your analysis.
Click to expand...


hi

your ascendant is pisces,sun in sagitarius,two mutable signs

--youre very changeable, moody
pisces is introvert sagitarius the most extrovert of all signs.
since nearly all planets in your chart are in the visible part of the chart youre likely to be more extrovert and turned to the outside world rather than dealing with feelings, emotions, the subjective stuff.
right soo far?;)
 
idunno said:
hi

your ascendant is pisces,sun in sagitarius,two mutable signs

--youre very changeable, moody
pisces is introvert sagitarius the most extrovert of all signs.
since nearly all planets in your chart are in the visible part of the chart youre likely to be more extrovert and turned to the outside world rather than dealing with feelings, emotions, the subjective stuff.
right soo far?;)
Click to expand...

one correction.
with the sun and ascendant ruler in house 8 you have a leaning towards the issues of psychology or life and death and the misteries of sex, all related to house 8. but you remain an extrovert
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom