Debunking Astrology besides newspapers Sun Signs

[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.

Thanks for alerting me that you are "using reason," and that you posses superior "critical faculties." You had me fooled.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

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.


Henry The Fourth, Part 1 Act 3, scene 1

Randi tested people who were either (1) mentally or emotionally challenged or (2) trying to make a living ripping people off by claiming powers they did not possess. At least in every video I have watched.

Randi was the master of debunking the obvious.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

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".

>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.

We are not talking about Universities and grants and people who traffic in accepted science and expanding our common knowledge of the University. No problem with science, of course, but where science fails, is with the new and the far reaching ideas, which I think is the purpose of this forum.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Max Plank

I am trying to introduce something new. Otherwise, what is the point of your forum---you want to just know what you already know until you see the next conventional discovery? If that is true, we have no discussion.

And I've defined what astrology I mean several times. Specifically, I've been impressed with jyotish, Vedic astrology.

 

[Pixel42]

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."

In order to test a claim, the only thing you need to know is what that claim is.

For example if the claim is that people born at the same place and time will be more alike in certain respects than people born in different places/times then you can collect data, analyse it statistically, and see if that's true.

If the claim is "I can produce horoscopes that are more accurate than would be expected by chance" then you can give some people five horoscopes, one of which is theirs, and see if they can pick it out more often than one time in five.

And so on.

If dozens of such studies and tests prove negative you can justifiably reject the claim. Only if new, contradictory, objective evidence is ever produced would you need to reconsider it.

Anyone who continues to insist the claim is true, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, can be safely concluded to be "trapped in the woo box."

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

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!

Ad hominen duly noted. Arrogance noted.

If you wish to write to your intellectual superiority, please drop off. The dialog is a waste of time for both us.

 

[Pixel42]

And I've defined what astrology I mean several times. Specifically, I've been impressed with jyotish, Vedic astrology.

And we're still waiting for you to link to the objective evidence that justifies that favourable impression.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

For example if the claim is that people born at the same place and time will be more alike in certain respects than people born in different places/times then you can collect data, analyze it statistically, and see if that's true.

This isn't the claim, but I agree to your larger point that Jyotish can be tested scientifically.

Definitions might be difficult. A jyotishee told me that in Sept 2019 the chart indicated "chest pain and discomfort." That month I had a heart attack, but I had no chest pain or discomfort. Do they get credit? On one hand they alerted me as to some major trouble in a specific area of my body, on the other they didn't actually catch a heart attack--However, out of the thousand or so listings in "common illnesses and conditions," they said "chest," not head or foot or kidney or stomach and they got the month right. How do we decide that?

Sometimes personal experience can get you further than quantitative analysis. Go look at the stones at Sacsayhuaman in Peru. Those were not done by the Incas, the claim is ridiculous. That becomes obvious when you see them in person.

If dozens of such studies and tests prove negative you can justifiably reject the claim.

There are no dozens of studies, not even sure there is one study. I'd have to see it.

Often scientific studies are conducted so as to produce what the scientist is expecting to see.

There were lots and lots of studies establishing that the the Clovis were the most ancient peoples living in North America. Peer reviewed. ]I didn't buy it. Am I in the "woo box." Maybe you are.

We haven't established the Jyotish woo box, but we do have examples of the science woo box. Here is one.

“‘At scientific conferences…some people wouldn’t even shake my hand.’ Even worse, the Clovis model [which states that America was populated by peoples migrating across the Bering Strait 11,500 years ago] had such a stranglehold that scientists ‘would dig until the they hit the Clovis level and just stop.’ Few looked for older bones and tools. Four or five possible pre-Clovis sites in South American were never reported because the scientists feared that doing so would wreck their reputations.”

Archeologist, interviewed in Newsweek, April 26, 1999

 

[Pixel42]

This isn't the claim, but I agree to your larger point that Jyotish can be tested scientifically.

Then what's stopping Jyotish astrologers from doing so?

Definitions might be difficult. A jyotishee told me that in Sept 2019 the chart indicated "chest pain and discomfort." That month I had a heart attack, but I had no chest pain or discomfort. Do they get credit?

How many such predictions did the jyotishee make, over say the course of a year? How many of them proved to be correct? How many would you have expected to be correct by chance? Was the number of correct predictions significantly greater than the number that would be expected by chance? When you know all these things you will know whether you should be impressed. Until then, all you have is an anecdote.

Sometimes personal experience can get you further than quantitative analysis.

No, it really can't. Humanity learned that the hard way. It's why the scientific method had to be invented.

There are no dozens of studies, not even sure there is one study.

Then what is it that has impressed you? Not a few anecdotes, surely?

Often scientific studies are conducted so as to produce what the scientist is expecting to see.

As long as the study is properly conducted, what the scientist expected to see is irrelevant. Some of the most important discoveries in science were made when an experiment or measurement produced the exact opposite result to that which was expected. The Michelson Morley experiment and the discovery that the expansion of the universe was accelerating spring to mind.

Scientists reach provisional conclusions based on the evidence available, then reassess them if new evidence is forthcoming. That's how it's supposed to work. The only thing needed to make scientists reassess their provisional conclusion that astrology is woo is objective evidence. You admit you have none, but say it can be obtained. So go ahead and obtain it. Until then, you really have nothing to complain about.

 

[abaddon]

Randi tested people who were either (1) mentally or emotionally challenged or (2) trying to make a living ripping people off by claiming powers they did not possess. At least in every video I have watched.

Randi was the master of debunking the obvious.

Nope. Randi tested whoever turned up to apply.

And is irrelevant to the argument anyway, since he has gone into retirement. And more luck to him.

In any event, I took the trouble, in the past, to actually learn how to cast astrological birth charts the hard way. Ascendants, descendants, angles, grand squares and triangles, angles between the planets and the interpretation of same.

Turns out it is all rubbish interpretation and cold reading. Sometimes warm or hot reading.

At the time, ephemerides were honking great books one had to buy at great expense. Now, anyone can get those online and can do it for themselves.

You error is in thinking that those "nasty skeptics" have never tried it out. Well I have. And I am a skeptic because it is utter nonsense.

Same for Tarot.
Same for Ouija.
Same for dowsing.

Well, same for a whole panoply of crankery.

Past life regression, auras and auric healing, psychic reading, crystal balls, spiritualists, shamanism, Castenada's drug fueled ramblings, Lyall Watsons wishful thinking, Edgar Cayce's craziness, OOBE and astral projection, I have seen it all and done it all. None of it stands up to scrutiny. Not one.

Decades of experience inform me of this. Aand every time I went in with open mind hoping against hope that there was something real in the next version of crankery, and every time disappointed that there was not.

So, frankly, you can go take a rather unlikely anatomical excursion when you rock up claiming that skeptics are unaware of the nature of what you are claiming. Because it is an utterly false claim to make.

Because I have tried it in full and found it wanting.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

And we're still waiting for you to link to the objective evidence that justifies that favourable impression.

We have lots of objective evidence that Mars is the 4th planet from the Sun. Would you prefer to have a discussion about that instead? What would we discuss? I thought the purpose here was to present new ideas.

At some point, Gabriele Veneziano had an idea, no evidence, no testing, no equations. He had the idea called string theory that all the known particles of nature are just different modes of vibration of the string. And for his string theory to be mathematically consistent, the strings had to move in more than four dimensions. And these extra dimensions must obviously be hidden from our ability to detect them! Laws you can't see. Not exactly, "objective evidence." You seem to be saying, you'd need evidence to entertain his ideas.

I'm trying to have the idea discussion first. Let's get out of the science "woo" box.

The only "evidence" is my experience and that of thousands of intelligent people who have used Jyotish successfully. Unlike Randi, I'm not presenting all sorts of uneducated, mentally challenged people as evidence. (One guy Randi "debunked" claimed he could walk on water). I'm saying, "hey, a lot of guys on Wall Street are using this. John Hagelin, the physicist uses this. Hmmmm. Interesting.

 

[Pixel42]

Thousands of intelligent people have convinced themselves of things which turned out not to be true. That's why the scientific method had to be invented. That's why anecdotal evidence tells you nothing except that there might be something worth investigating. Only by doing the investigation do you discover whether the pattern you thought you saw is really there - whether there really is a signal, or just noise.

By all means speculate and suggest ideas, but if the ideas are testable then why continue to speculate? Just test them, and find out if there's anything to them.

 

[abaddon]

We have lots of objective evidence that Mars is the 4th planet from the Sun. Would you prefer to have a discussion about that instead? What would we discuss? I thought the purpose here was to present new ideas.

Oh you are perfectly free to present any new idea here. But be ready to defend it because this is the International Skeptics Forum. The clue is in the name.

At some point, Gabriele Veneziano had an idea, no evidence, no testing, no equations. He had the idea called string theory that all the known particles of nature are just different modes of vibration of the string. And for his string theory to be mathematically consistent, the strings had to move in more than four dimensions. And these extra dimensions must obviously be hidden from our ability to detect them! Laws you can't see. Not exactly, "objective evidence." You seem to be saying, you'd need evidence to entertain his ideas.

Mostly, you got everything wrong about string theory. Quite how you managed to do that remains a mystery.

I'm trying to have the idea discussion first. Let's get out of the science "woo" box.

That would be an awful lot easier if you ceased peddling "woo".

The only "evidence" is my experience and that of thousands of intelligent people who have used Jyotish successfully. Unlike Randi, I'm not presenting all sorts of uneducated, mentally challenged people as evidence. (One guy Randi "debunked" claimed he could walk on water). I'm saying, "hey, a lot of guys on Wall Street are using this. John Hagelin, the physicist uses this. Hmmmm. Interesting.

That is incoherent. Randi could only deal with claims made. He could not deal with claims NOT made. Why you think he had some onus to chase around the interwebs after any fool claim is anyone's guess. For example, do you think the earth is flat? Why or why not? And either way, do you waste your time chasing globe earthers around the intertubes or the flat earthers around the webernets to prove whatever point you think it might be that you have?

ETA: And do you not realise that Randi is long departed the scene and this site has no association with Randi or his foundations? And do you not realise that you are diverting from the topic at hand, which is astrology? Why are you trying to distract from the thread topic?

 

[curious cat]

Think like that and you'll never find anything new.

Dozens of other studies on what?

Coincidences may be a bit stronger than you think. Statistics is very convincing on this. For instance:
1) How many people do you need to find a pair with same number of hair (besides of the bold )?
2) How many people do you need to find pair with the same birthday?

Answer me these two questions and then we can talk further the maths behind astrology.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

Nope. Randi tested whoever turned up to apply.

So then Randi should have had the integrity to say "hey the people I'm "debunking" are not mentally stable enough or honest enough to be representative."

In any event, I took the trouble, in the past, to actually learn how to cast astrological birth charts the hard way. Ascendants, descendants, angles, grand squares and triangles, angles between the planets and the interpretation of same.

Since I've never heard of "descendants, angles, and grand squares (that made me laugh), and I know a fair amount about Vedic astrology, I'm wondering if you are not BSing me. Can you tell me who you studied astrology under and what books you read to gain the information you used as an astrologer? My gut reaction is you are a a guy blowing some serious smoke, but I'll refrain until you get me the names of your astrology teachers and the books.

Turns out it is all rubbish interpretation and cold reading. Sometimes warm or hot reading.

Hot and cold readings are designed to rip people off by fooling them. So you are saying you were ripping people off for decades? If that is your level of honesty, why would should I take anything you say seriously?

The readings I've had done have mostly been on the phone or via email with the reading done based on my chart without any participation from me. The few I've had in person could not possibly had a cold or hot reading. I was asked no questions, and the astrologer never looked at me. They don't usually ask questions if they are any good because they have your chart.

You error is in thinking that those "nasty skeptics" have never tried it out. Well I have.

You have tried what? Most of what you reference has no bearing on what we are discussing. I have no idea about Tarot or what else you mention.

What part of Cayce's writings do you have issue with? To take one thing.

 

[Pixel42]

There are no dozens of studies, not even sure there is one study. I'd have to see it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_astrology#Testing_astrology

In one test, 27 Indian astrologers, with the appropriate horoscopes, failed to determine the intelligence difference between 100 neurotypical and 100 mentally disabled children at a rate higher than that determined by chance alone in a double blind test. The astrologers had, on average, 14 years experience. A team of astrologers from one astrologers' institute also performed at chance expectation. The president of the Maharashtra Astrological Society claimed to be able to predict sex and intelligence 60 per cent of the time each, but he performed no better than chance in double blind conditions.[35]

 

[Pixel42]

The readings I've had done have mostly been on the phone or via email with the reading done based on my chart without any participation from me. The few I've had in person could not possibly had a cold or hot reading. I was asked no questions, and the astrologer never looked at me. They don't usually ask questions if they are any good because they have your chart.

How did you rule out confirmation bias and the Forer Effect as the explanation of any perceived accuracy?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I thought the purpose here was to present new ideas.

Are you saying that astrology is a new idea? I suppose if it was then that might explain why nobody has bothered to test whether it's real or not yet. Except of course Pixel42 just quoted a reference indicating that it has indeed been tested and works no better than dumb luck.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_astrology#Testing_astrology

Ah. Yes. But those folks were all "mentally or emotionally challenged". QED

 

[sackett]

Okay, so Gabriele Venenziano built the fortress at Sacsayhuaman using strings that he vibrated a lot of different ways. At least that's the idea I've formed from Frank's contributions.

Here's another idea: What Frank doesn't know isn't knowledge.

Well, goddammit, we're supposed to jump out of boxes and go "Woo! Here's a nidea! Start running around with it!" Frank told us that, and -- here's a fresh idea I just had this minute -- THIS IS HIS FORUM AND HIS RULES RULE!

No wonder he doesn't care what you think.

 

[abaddon]

So then Randi should have had the integrity to say "hey the people I'm "debunking" are not mentally stable enough or honest enough to be representative."



Since I've never heard of "descendants, angles, and grand squares (that made me laugh), and I know a fair amount about Vedic astrology, I'm wondering if you are not BSing me.

Oh, Vedic astrology. Because that must be totally different, right? No. It is the very same. It merely changed it's disguise.

Can you tell me who you studied astrology under and what books you read to gain the information you used as an astrologer?

Nope. It was a long time ago and I don't care. If there were any reality in astrology then you would have no hesitation presenting your evidence, but you cannot, because you have none. And besides, I learned it from a bloke who exchews any publicity at all (now deceased) so you cannot find him.

My gut reaction is you are a a guy blowing some serious smoke, but I'll refrain until you get me the names of your astrology teachers and the books.

Oh, I tossed those last time I moved house as the useless deadweight they were. It would take me some time to search out. I could do so, if I were convinced you would pay a blind bit of notice. But I am certain that you will not care in the slightest, so why should I make that effort? After all, you just switched from western astrology to vedic astrology for no reason other than that the facts were going against you. That informs me that you are not being honest on this topic.

Hot and cold readings are designed to rip people off by fooling them. So you are saying you were ripping people off for decades? If that is your level of honesty, why would should I take anything you say seriously?

Lie. I was casting scopes to test the accuracy of the claims. I recieved no remuneration, nor asked for same.

Why must you make crap up and lie?

The readings I've had done have mostly been on the phone or via email with the reading done based on my chart without any participation from me. The few I've had in person could not possibly had a cold or hot reading. I was asked no questions, and the astrologer never looked at me. They don't usually ask questions if they are any good because they have your chart.

Did you record those? Cold reading does not rely on asking questions. Barnum statements work because they are statements and not questions. I should know. I have done it. With strangers. I was always aware that the recipient was hanging on my every word. I always was at pains to explain to the recipient that everything I said was entirely made up. And to explain exactly what I did and how I did it.

And that is why I stopped. It did not matter how much I stated that it was all made up crap. People still insisted on it's reality.

You have tried what? Most of what you reference has no bearing on what we are discussing. I have no idea about Tarot or what else you mention.

Then you are merely uneducated.
Education can fix that, but you seem oddly resistant to education. For example, you seem that the atheist me has far more experience in the occult than you even though you plainly admit it to be so.

What part of Cayce's writings do you have issue with? To take one thing.

Start with the simple fact that none of it was even vaguely true.

And why exactly did you glom onto Cayce as opposed to the others? Was that the only one you had heard of?