• 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.

Christopher Hitchens: Astrology Not the Only Cosmic Hoax

For most, Brits at least just think of astrology as a bit if fun and nonsense. Hitchens has given it far too much credence by his article. Hasn't he got anything more interesting to write about?

For the record, there was some statistical analysis carried out on birth dates and the professions with respect to astrology. Apparently there was indeed a degree of correlation above random chance with the position of certain planets in our solar system. However, there was no correlation found with star constellations.
 
Explorer said:
Hasn't he got anything more interesting to write about?
Click to expand...
It's a pretty brief piece. It probably didn't take much time to dash off.

For the record, there was some statistical analysis carried out on birth dates and the professions with respect to astrology. Apparently there was indeed a degree of correlation above random chance with the position of certain planets in our solar system. However, there was no correlation found with star constellations.
Click to expand...
Could you provide a reference for this "statistical analysis"?
 
Explorer said:
For most, Brits at least just think of astrology as a bit if fun and nonsense. Hitchens has given it far too much credence by his article. Hasn't he got anything more interesting to write about?

For the record, there was some statistical analysis carried out on birth dates and the professions with respect to astrology. Apparently there was indeed a degree of correlation above random chance with the position of certain planets in our solar system. However, there was no correlation found with star constellations.
Click to expand...

If you consider all correlations relevant, than there's a good chance that there are always a few that are above random chance.

A proper investigation would first make predictions:

"Libra's are more likely to end up in helpdesk"
"Saggitarius will more often end up as a middle-management"
"Tauri will be unemployed more often as they are stupider than others"

Than test those predictions. In such a proper test only those correlations which relate to a prediction are relevant.

Looking at all the correlations is pure and simple data-mining, one of pseudo-science biggest downfalls.
 
Explorer said:
For most, Brits at least just think of astrology as a bit if fun and nonsense. Hitchens has given it far too much credence by his article. Hasn't he got anything more interesting to write about?
Click to expand...
Tell me, how many astrology books are available in an average bookshop? And how many Astronomy books?

I don't know about the UK, but here in Australia, there is a depressingly large selection of Astrology books, which obviously sell well. People are spending hard-earned cash on this "fun and nonsense".
 
hgc said:
Is that really worse than making the flip-side mistake?
Click to expand...

I suppose not.

All I've ever seen is either what I said, or done the right way.

I've also seen 'Dragons of Eden' in with the science fiction. Probably because of the cover art.
 
hgc said:
Is that really worse than making the flip-side mistake?
Click to expand...
Years ago I worked in a planetarium bookshop/giftshop. You could hear a strange sound whenever people came in asking where the astrology books are. (It was my teeth gnashing.) In fact, I think it's worse now because when they asked it back then, they simply misspoke when they intended to ask about astronomy books.

I suspect it's worse nowadays because 1) New Agers probably go there looking for astrology books, and 2) they probably find them there.
 
clerihew80 said:
It's a pretty brief piece. It probably didn't take much time to dash off.


Could you provide a reference for this "statistical analysis"?
Click to expand...

I knew that was going to be the next question.

I saw this I think on an "Horizon" programme a few years ago. The correlations were found with people in professions, like solicitors, doctors, architects, etc.

I can remember seeing diagrams of statistical analysis, and that the researchers themselves feeling a bit gobsmacked by the results.

I shall try a search to see if I can find the actual reference and report back.
 
I have just found a link about the researcher whose work I think the tv programme was based on.

Here is a link which provides the background and one of the diagrams that I can recall:

http://www.answers.com/topic/michel-gauquelin

It would seem that his results have been challenged successfully, but interestingly, the counter analysis could also be challenged on the basis of the definition of subject matter. This is often the problem in research. In this case the correlation between the planet Mars and sportspersons seems to be the definitive debunking focus. However, there was disagreement by the protagonist and the committee appraising the results and conclusions, as to what constituted a "sportsman/woman". Was it correct to use any old sportsperson, accomplished or otherwise, or should a selection process have taken place to only use eminent career sportspersons in the analysis.
 
Last edited:
geoman said:
anyway...prove to me that I'm NOT at the centre of the universe then.
Click to expand...

In fact, you ARE at the centre of the universe. According to the Inflationary Big Bang model of cosmology, every place in the universe was once at the same place. Since then, every place in the universe has been moving away from every other place. Every place in the universe can therefore be considered to be at the universe's centre. QED.

:D

Take that, Copernicans!
 
Oh, and yes, I'm reading God is not Great at the moment. Wonderful piece of work.

Oh, and yes, politas once got an ID supporter to read Dawkins' The God Delusion, so it's not completely impossible that a believer will read Hitchens' book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom