Debunking Astrology besides newspapers Sun Signs

[Jack by the hedge]

It's ironic to be given examples of new scientific ideas which took time (and evidence) to be accepted in place of old ideas, as if that somehow supported the notion that science would eventually come around to accepting astrology. It's a collection of ideas which are substantially older than science itself. If astrology is going to make its case for being real rather than make-believe, when is it going to get around to doing so?

 

[Athyrio]

No. I'm talking to the people who will visit this forum. Astrology, like 911 and space aliens, never gets old. People will seek it out, especially if it is at the top of the list.

Excellent idea indeed. Those “people” will come away with a different view of astrology now.




/if they read only your posts

 

[Pixel42]

It's ironic to be given examples of new scientific ideas which took time (and evidence) to be accepted in place of old ideas, as if that somehow supported the notion that science would eventually come around to accepting astrology. It's a collection of ideas which are substantially older than science itself. If astrology is going to make its case for being real rather than make-believe, when is it going to get around to doing so?

And it is indeed up to astrologers, not scientists, to do so. Their claims, their burden of proof. Astrologers are free to design and run their own studies. Those few that have bothered and understood enough to do it produced the same negative results.

Most astrologers don't understand human psychology well enough to even understand why they need to eliminate confirmation bias and the Forer Effect in order to reach reliable conclusions, let alone how.

 

[turingtest]

And it is indeed up to astrologers, not scientists, to do so. Their claims, their burden of proof. Astrologers are free to design and run their own studies. Those few that have bothered and understood enough to do it produced the same negative results.

Most astrologers don't understand human psychology well enough to even understand why they need to eliminate confirmation bias and the Forer Effect in order to reach reliable conclusions, let alone how.

Well, yes, but...the astrologers who will actually say what they're saying can't be trusted to be doing the real thing; any testable claims that are wrong predictions are really right ones because the reasons they're wrong make them close enough to right to be considered so; and they don't care what you think anyway. Also, science sucks and James Randi is a poopy-head.

I think that about covers it...

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Dear Thread Resurrector,

You do not do yourself any favours by claiming on some spurious basis that folk suffer "mental" problems when you have no knowledge of them - please stop, as it is highly offensive, especially coming from someone, inaccurately, claiming to be on the end of ad homs.

And you also do yourself no favours in making claims about science and science history in stating that Wegener's ideas were about plate tectonics, which they weren't.

And you still haven't addressed the "No True Astrologer" problem. Is this going to happen?

Thank you.

 

[calebprime]

Dear Thread Resurrector,

You do not do yourself any favours by claiming on some spurious basis that folk suffer "mental" problems when you have no knowledge of them - please stop, as it is highly offensive, especially coming from someone, inaccurately, claiming to be on the end of ad homs.

And you also do yourself no favours in making claims about science and science history in stating that Wegener's ideas were about plate tectonics, which they weren't.

And you still haven't addressed the "No True Astrologer" problem. Is this going to happen?

Thank you.

could you please quote the post you're replying to?

I couldn't find the post that seemed to be a problem to you.

also, could you explain what you mean about Wegener's ideas not being about plate tectonics? If you google his name, it's standard history that he is credited with plate tectonics. What distinction are you making?

 

[calebprime]

There was a study a few years ago which used the data from a big medical study. Pairs of "time twins" - people born in the same town within five minutes of each other - were identified. They were no more alike in any respect than the rest of their cohort.

All the evidence I've seen contradicts this. There are web pages full of twins who have never met, showing up for the meeting in the exact same clothing and color with a great many traits in common down to the drink they prefer (diet pepsi or whatever). Twins are not going to be separated by location, but often by time, one birth an hour later. That can be huge.

How about Tom and Mark Kelly, the NASA space station employees? Mark lost all his hair a later than Tom. Both NASA engineers. Both divorced once and remarried. Both with two kids. Agreed, one example does not make a case.

surely by "time twins" pixel42 means people who were born at the same time, not actual biological twins such as you go on to talk about.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

could you please quote the post you're replying to?

I couldn't find the post that seemed to be a problem to you.

also, could you explain what you mean about Wegener's ideas not being about plate tectonics? If you google his name, it's standard history that he is credited with plate tectonics. What distinction are you making?

Wegener came up with continental drift in 1912.

Plate tectonics was developed in the late 1950s-early 1960s as a mechanism to explain continental drift.

The 2 are not the same thing, hence the distinction.

See Mr McLaughlin's post 193: I highlight this distinction as he's been banging on about accuracy and one thing not being that, this or the other and then makes a conflation suggesting he doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No. It designs those studies without having any idea what they are studying with the purpose of being right about something which they don't understand.

Did you reach that conclusion by studying the body of scientific work on astrology or did you just make it up for the purpose of being right about something which you don't understand?

 

[Pixel42]

surely by "time twins" pixel42 means people who were born at the same time, not actual biological twins such as you go on to talk about.

Given the number of more important points that were sailing over his head, I decided to let that one go.

Did you reach that conclusion by studying the body of scientific work on astrology or did you just make it up for the purpose of being right about something which you don't understand?

 

[calebprime]

Wegener came up with continental drift in 1912.

Plate tectonics was developed in the late 1950s-early 1960s as a mechanism to explain continental drift.

The 2 are not the same thing, hence the distinction.

See Mr McLaughlin's post 193: I highlight this distinction as he's been banging on about accuracy and one thing not being that, this or the other and then makes a conflation suggesting he doesn't know what he is talking about.

thanks

 

[Giordano]

It's ironic to be given examples of new scientific ideas which took time (and evidence) to be accepted in place of old ideas, as if that somehow supported the notion that science would eventually come around to accepting astrology. It's a collection of ideas which are substantially older than science itself. If astrology is going to make its case for being real rather than make-believe, when is it going to get around to doing so?

This is a fabulous point! Frank McLaughlin claims science only focuses on proving established ideas and cannot accept new ideas “such as astrology.” But it was astrology that was the established idea historically. It was science that eventually rigorously tested astrology and concluded it was bunk.

 

[sackett]

Kumar could tell us

I want to know more about those major universities of astrology in India. Where are they? What makes them major? What is a typical curriculum? How much do they charge?

Do they give you a diploma suitable for framing?

 

[Pixel42]

I want to know more about those major universities of astrology in India. Where are they? What makes them major? What is a typical curriculum? How much do they charge?

Do they give you a diploma suitable for framing?

http://www.astrology-and-science.com/H-indi2.htm

In 2001 the University Grants Commision (UGC) in India decided to provide funds for courses in astrology and palmistry at Indian universities. The decision provoked outrage and controversy in the pages of the prestigious Indian science journal Current Science. Of thirty comments, most of them from scientists in university departments or research institutes, about half dismissed astrology as a pseudo-science, about half of the rest felt decisive tests were needed, and the rest felt there was nothing wrong with funding something that the majority of Indian people believed in. In due course grants were approved for 20 out of 45 applying universities.

The article goes on to list all the comments, including this editorial:

The generally placid academic science community in India has been stirred into unprecedented ferment by the UGC's decision to set up a few departments of Vedic astrology in Indian universities, which "would provide exclusive teaching and training in the subject leading to certificate, diploma, undergraduate, post-graduate and PhD degrees". The new departments will have Professors, Readers, Lecturers, Library Attendants and Computer Operators, with a possible "non-recurring" budget of Rs 6 lakhs for an "observatory" and Rs 5 lakhs for a "computer lab and horoscope bank". [About $US14,000 and $US12,000.] The UGC's assertion that Vedic astrology is a science has stirred a hornets' nest. Astrology has been here for centuries. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that planets at the time of birth do not dictate the course of human affairs, astrology will be with us in the foreseeable future. The present battle is not between astrology and science but between the UGC (which is charged with the responsibility of fostering higher education) and the scientific community. The UGC's view that astrology needs to be promoted as a science in our universities is a pointless initiative that will further erode the credibility of our institutions. P.BALARAM

 

[Carrot Flower King]

This one is becoming more and more like pigeon chess the longer it goes on.

I just love reading woosters making claims about science, when the more they post the clearer it becomes that they do not know what science really is nor what its history is.

Marvellous!

 

[Carrot Flower King]

No. It designs those studies without having any idea what they are studying with the purpose of being right about something which they don't understand.

Try that sort of line out on yer average grant awarding body, potential PhD supervisor or whoever and see how far it gets you.

Try using it as an answer in any class of science exam and see where it gets you.

We didn't even do that for under-grad dissertations back in the '70s.

It is no surprise that you will not define what kind of "astrology" you mean, as it appears increasingly likely that "will not" is actually "cannot".

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

No. It designs those studies without having any idea what they are studying with the purpose of being right about something which they don't understand.

When the perfidious trickster Randi tested people, he first asked them what they could do and then tested whether they could actually do it. The answer was always "NO".

Shakespeare had the concept correct more than 400 years ago.

Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur:Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?

Henry The Fourth, Part 1 Act 3, scene 1

 

[grunion]

I don't think astrology can possibly be "debunked" on any rational level. Someone that believes in astrology does not have the same critical faculties as anyone using reason to understand why our personalities or destiny are what they are. Thus it just doesn't seem worth the effort.

 

[sackett]

Thankee kindly, Pixel. I hoped that Frank McL would provide the info.

But I wouldn't accept it anyway.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

I don't think astrology can possibly be "debunked" on any rational level. Someone that believes in astrology does not have the same critical faculties as anyone using reason to understand why our personalities or destiny are what they are. Thus it just doesn't seem worth the effort.

Interesting....I would argue that someone, without much or any knowledge of astrology (or any other subject), who rejects it "does not have critical faculties" and is in fact trapped in the "science box."