Debunking Astrology besides newspapers Sun Signs

[Frank McLaughlin]

Or more appropriately, those who claim that such people exist could point them out. I think guys with PhDs out to be able to figure out why that isn't happening.

Phd's are not interested.

Miller and Vernon as I recall the story in "Deceptive Practice" went looking but didn't find the guy. That is what set Jay off to try. Ricky Jay tells the story of having found him himself. Jay implies in the movie that he can center deal. I can't remember if he actually states it.

The point was not the little details of magicians, but that there are a million very good magicians in the world, and if you are going to study what they can and can't do, you need first to identify who to study, who to ask. Who is great at it before you conclude "it can't be done." That has not been done prior to the astrological studies.

I have been open to it all my life. I used to believe it, among other things. Tell me, though: are you as open to the possibility that you are wrong as you exhort us to be?

I'd like to see unbiased research done. I'm not telling you what position to take, I'm suggesting that you can't reach a decision based on the faulty science that has been conducted, science whose purpose is to support the current understanding of the laws of nature instead of yielding an objective result.

I'm not open to doubting my own personal experience. I am open to the idea that western astrology is false--I simply don't know--and I'm open to the possibility that eastern astrology is not sufficiently accurate to be useful. But the phenomena itself is real based on my direct experience.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

I'm not the one born at roughly the same time as Rush. You have added "apparently" here, though. Would your claims be weakened if you were to discover that Rush and the other poster born near him were born within the same two hour period? If not, why not?

In NYC (8 million people) in any given two hour window, I will guess 200 babies are born. Obviously, 200 people are not going to lead identical lives so there are other parameters. The most obvious differentiating factor is the change of birth sign every two hours and that happens to be the one I know about. That changes the chart entirely. I'm not an astrologer nor need I have to be to have this discussion.

Perhaps we can test it. Rush Limbaugh (and our other poster) was born on January 12th, 1951. I propose the following:

You have no scientific method for determining when Rush or the poster were born (other than speaking to Rush about the time and his confidence in the accuracy), and you especially have no way of determine the other poster's time, given that he is trying to make a two sentence argument against astrology.

My mother told me when I was little that I was born at 6:00 am. My birth certificate says 6:30 am. My grandmother says my Dad was born on July 5 early in the morning; my Dad's birth certificate says July 4.

You are going down some heavily unscientific roads for a guy who claims to adhere to science.

 

[Garrette]

Phd's are not interested.

Then perhaps you should not have brought them up.

Miller and Vernon as I recall the story in "Deceptive Practice" went looking but didn't find the guy. That is what set Jay off to try. Ricky Jay tells the story of having found him himself. Jay implies in the movie that he can center deal. I can't remember if he actually states it.

In Ricky Jay and His 52 Assistants, Ricky tells it as I have told it, i.e., that Miller and Vernon looked and Vernon found him and Vernon told Ricky the story. He (Ricky) also does claim to be doing a center deal as that is the premise of the effect, but he makes the claim in the same manner I might claim to be magically transporting your signed card to my wallet. Makes no difference; whether he actually center deals or not, I accept he has the skill to do it.

The point was not the little details of magicians, but that there are a million very good magicians in the world, and if you are going to study what they can and can't do, you need first to identify who to study, who to ask. Who is great at it before you conclude "it can't be done." That has not been done prior to the astrological studies.

You misunderstand what has been studied and what has been said.

What has been studied is aspects of astrological claims, and with Forer et al, what has been studied is audience susceptibility to misrepresentation (my wording isn't the best here, but I take it you get the gist). The results, scientifically speaking, are: There is sufficient reason to conclude that the reported apparent accuracy of some astrological readings do not require the extra assumption of astrology to explain them. Further, no astrological system and no astrologer -- expert or otherwise -- has either defined what they claim to be able to do or demonstrated that they can do it.

There's a difference.

Of course, at some point when that evidence is not only not forthcoming but the practicioners themselves make no effort to provide it and in fact resist efforts to obtain it, it becomes quite reasonable to conclude there actually is no there there, subject, of course, to correction upon the presentation of actual evidence.

I'd like to see unbiased research done. I'm not telling you what position to take, I'm suggesting that you can't reach a decision based on the faulty science that has been conducted, science whose purpose is to support the current understanding of the laws of nature instead of yielding an objective result.

You misunderstand the purpose of science if that is your characterization of it. And if you'd like to see such research done, then perhaps you can encourage the expert astrologers of which you are aware to approach scientists to do it.

I'm not open to doubting my own personal experience.

Then the one who sees what he wants because to do otherwise would conflict with his worldview is not me.

I am open to the idea that western astrology is false--I simply don't know--and I'm open to the possibility that eastern astrology is not sufficiently accurate to be useful. But the phenomena itself is real based on my direct experience.

It may be, but your personal anecdotes are not sufficient evidence to conclude such.

 

[Garrette]

In NYC (8 million people) in any given two hour window, I will guess 200 babies are born. Obviously, 200 people are not going to lead identical lives so there are other parameters. The most obvious differentiating factor is the change of birth sign every two hours and that happens to be the one I know about. That changes the chart entirely. I'm not an astrologer nor need I have to be to have this discussion.

Okay. So now we need to know which two hour window within which someone is born plus we need to know other factors. We're getting there. What are the other factors?

You have no scientific method for determining when Rush or the poster were born (other than speaking to Rush about the time and his confidence in the accuracy), and you especially have no way of determine the other poster's time, given that he is trying to make a two sentence argument against astrology.

My mother told me when I was little that I was born at 6:00 am. My birth certificate says 6:30 am. My grandmother says my Dad was born on July 5 early in the morning; my Dad's birth certificate says July 4.

You are going down some heavily unscientific roads for a guy who claims to adhere to science.

And this invalidates everything you have said. No astrologer can be certain of a client's birth time to the degree you say is required, therefore all their readings are suspect.

 

[AdamSK]

No astrologer can be certain of a client's birth time to the degree you say is required, therefore all their readings are suspect.

Suspect until they get some confirmation, though. That's what he's talking about - you can start with a rough idea and then validate the specifics by getting more feedback from the user.

"Your birth certificate says 2:00 pm, but from the fact that you fell in love on August 4, 2007 and got a promotion last Tuesday, you were actually born at 1:57."

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

The analogy fails. In baseball the claim of what makes a hitter good is defined. You have a .333 batting average and an on base average of .450? You're hired, kid.

Are you joking? The analogy is spot on. High school kids routinely hit .333 with an on base avg of .450 and the science community would be quick to study those kids so they can conclude that it is not possible to hit a 105 mph fastball. That is what they have done with astrology. What they should do is establish a criteria that will allow for identifying those competent enough to *possibly* hit at 105 mph. This is done by observation and a radar gun used behind home plate.

So in baseball it is identifying the speed of the pitch that we know can be hit. In astrology it is identifying those who have had success in making accurate predictions as far as we can tell observationally. That has to be the starting point.

Astrology -- and you -- will not do that. Instead, we have vague claims of charts that might or might not be accurate and might or might not be provide something of value, but when pressed for specifics we not only get a non-response as to what the product is, we get told no one knows who the hitter is.

No vague claims. To state that there are charts that are inaccurate is to state the obvious because anyone can create a chart, anyone can claim to be an astrologer. So to establish if the phenomena is real we need first to identify people of whom it has been observed have the skill. Step one is to identify who might have the skill to do it.

What specifics do you need? Astrology is used to predict future events. The hitter is the person getting the reading who can vouch for the astrologer so we don't study a guy who read one book and started his astrology business last week. Or a guy who is using a method of astrology that does no more than define personality traits so the scientist can shoot down some paper tigers and claim to have invalidated astrology without having even acknowledged that several different systems exist.

>about the application of the type of study done by Forer.

Forer is an example of a pseudo-study of no value that is designed to reinforce everyone's existing belief.

You also seem to think that a demonstration of audience susceptibility to certain flaws in thinking is not appropriate when on the contrary it is most appropriate.

A demonstration of audience susceptibility using vague ill-defined personality traits is useless and that's what Forer is. Conduct that same study among graduate students at MIT, or engineers or businessmen at Google and have it led not by a professor or someone in a position of authority, and you might have something more than what you have now: an obvious attempt by somebody to manipulate you.

What kind of people who want to make a statement use teenagers instead of successful business people? I will tell. People who are looking to manipulate, not get to the truth.

That study was conducted on my class when I was in college and about half did not fall for it. But it was given to us by an authority figure who had been teaching us all semester so many just took his word for it without any analysis.
Forer is a manipulation, not a test.

What I have demonstrated is that audiences will have experiences (which you apparently call observations) that lead them to think things are true which are not true.

The astrologer tells you that you will leave your job for a new, better position in six months. You track it. It is an incredible stretch to suggest that most people will think that did happen when it didn't. As I say, my mother is either dead, in which case the astrologer was correct or she is not.

 

[AdamSK]

As I say, my mother is either dead, in which case the astrologer was correct or she is not.

When was this prediction first recorded?

 

[tsig]

I've never seen a horoscope that was "feel good platitudes." I've never seen a horoscope that dealt with personality traits. I understand that they exist. I see it in my daily paper (not the great NY Times). Of what use would it be to provide someone the traits of their own personality?

With all due respect, you might want to learn about astrology prior to rejecting it. Is your opinion here on newspaper astrology? The equivalent of watching a 7th grade baseball team, and concluding it is not possible to throw a 90 mph fastball because you haven't seen it done? Anyone can throw a baseball; anyone can hang up an astrology for hire sign.

Even a 7th grade team will have a pitcher that can get it over the plate.

 

[tsig]

You're not a large gasbag who distorts the truth and can't think clearly?

A few minutes in a chart can make all the difference in the world. It can be sufficient to change the rising sign of the chart, the most significant aspect of any chart, a signification that changes every two hours. 7:50 sure looks like a rounded number. When my son was born the clock in the hospital room was off five minutes.

You would have to establish that you had Rush's birth time accurately recorded. To say nothing of your own. Big if. Rush has given this information out on his radio show? That surprises me. I've seen different birth times for John Lennon and Bill Clinton, they can't all be correct.

I've never encountered anything remotely like what your experience has been. I don't know much about so called western astrology, but it is goofy beyond all measure to have someone take issue with your time if it is correct within a few minutes (usually) and location is never an issue, even off by 20 miles.

Humm...

 

[tsig]

You might wish to check for consistency here.

Ninjaed.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

Okay. So now we need to know which two hour window within which someone is born plus we need to know other factors. We're getting there. What are the other factors?

People spend decades studying astrology in India. You are not going to learn how it works from my posts here, and I'm not an astrologer, nor need I be to have this discussion.

And I certainly don't need to be an astrologer to refute silly studies like Forer.

And this invalidates everything you have said. No astrologer can be certain of a client's birth time to the degree you say is required, therefore all their readings are suspect.

I have not defined the degree to which a birth time must be exact and the degree of accuracy required varies depending on what you are examining. The full answer to how a birth time is interpreted is quite complex and so I am taking all manner of shortcuts or I'd be sitting here writing a book. The idea that you are going to ask me a few questions and have an understanding sufficient to evaluate astrology is ridiculous.

All readings are suspect. The validation comes from the person for whom predictions have been made. Those are accurate or not.

 

[tsig]

I think guys with PhDs ought to be able to figure that out.

A skilled magician or card mechanic can deal from the top or bottom of the deck or can deal the third card from the top of the deck, and you'd never catch him. He deals you Kings and himself Aces all day long.

However, it is maintained by great magicians themselves that it is impossible to deal from the CENTER of the deck. Can't be done. Randy can't do it. Not even close.

So if you round up 50 great magicians and test them you can convince yourself that no one can deal from the center of the deck, just as you have convinced yourself that astrology can't be real. You hear what you already think you know.

Start by looking. Ricky Jay can do it. He showed me. And he found a guy in Missouri who can do it. It was then done on camera (see "Ricky Jay and his 52 assistants") That's two.

I've seen astrology work and I've seen Aces dealt from the middle of the deck. First step is to be open to the possibility that allows you to really look.

So the first step to finding a real astrologer is to be gullible.

 

[Garrette]

Are you joking? The analogy is spot on. High school kids routinely hit .333 with an on base avg of .450 and the science community would be quick to study those kids so they can conclude that it is not possible to hit a 105 mph fastball.

Really? You've seen them do this?

That is what they have done with astrology. What they should do is establish a criteria that will allow for identifying those competent enough to *possibly* hit at 105 mph. This is done by observation and a radar gun used behind home plate.

The issue remains exactly what I have said, but you have now given me a means to restate it:

What, in astrology, is the equivalent of hitting at 105 mph?

Answer that question before your deride others not researching it.

So in baseball it is identifying the speed of the pitch that we know can be hit.

It wasn't to start with, but okay, I'll let those goal posts shift.

In astrology it is identifying those who have had success in making accurate predictions as far as we can tell observationally. That has to be the starting point.

It will make a good starting point if that is what is being studied. Your objection to Forer is that he didn't study this, but he never claimed to be. To stick with your (still faulty) baseball analogy, it's like me, as someone who hasn't played baseball since Little League, complaining that Bob Costas said the Cubs don't know how to win a World Series simply because they haven't won a World Series and then suggesting that what Costas ought to be doing is finding an expert baseball team to see if they can maybe make a run at the play-offs.

But what I have been asking you for is to define the claims, which you are finally beginning to put out there. So astrology is "making accurate predictions." Excellent. Do you have criteria for what makes an accurate prediction or is that something we should refine here? This is not a facetious question; it is, in fact, central to what you want Western scientists to do.

Then, of course, is your recurring observations. You continue to use it as a substitute for evidence.

No vague claims. To state that there are charts that are inaccurate is to state the obvious because anyone can create a chart, anyone can claim to be an astrologer. So to establish if the phenomena is real we need first to identify people of whom it has been observed have the skill. Step one is to identify who might have the skill to do it.

No. That's step two. Step one is to identify what the skill is. Of course, it can be messier than that in that as a practical matter we identify sort of simultaneously both what the skill is and who the potential experts are, but you are still saying "Go Study Vedic Astrologers; they are the ones who practice Vedic Astrology; I can't tell you what Vedic Astrology is except that it makes accurate predictions."

What specifics do you need? Astrology is used to predict future events. The hitter is the person getting the reading who can vouch for the astrologer so we don't study a guy who read one book and started his astrology business last week.

Then you've opened it back up to Western astrology and even to the newspaper horoscope writers because there are people who vouch loudly and longly about those, too.

Or a guy who is using a method of astrology that does no more than define personality traits so the scientist can shoot down some paper tigers and claim to have invalidated astrology without having even acknowledged that several different systems exist.

Why? Why do you dismiss astrology as a personality predictor? There are just as many proponents of that as for Vedic. (Okay, maybe not as many given India's populuation, but you get the point). And your criteria so far is simply that the client vouches for the astrologer.

Forer is an example of a pseudo-study of no value that is designed to reinforce everyone's existing belief.

Yes, you keep repeating this yet you can point to no flaws except that you don't like his chosen audience, and even for that you cannot actually support your objection.

A demonstration of audience susceptibility using vague ill-defined personality traits is useless and that's what Forer is.

Showing that people will fall for generalities is useless?

What if it were shown for vague, ill-defined predictions that they nonetheless swore were dead on accurate? (There's another thread in this very sub-forum dealing with exactly that).

Conduct that same study among graduate students at MIT, or engineers or businessmen at Google and have it led not by a professor or someone in a position of authority, and you might have something more than what you have now: an obvious attempt by somebody to manipulate you.

You very well might. Has anyone with the appropriate credentials either (a) pointed out the flaws you claim with Forer, or (b) conducted an experiment like you describe? There's nothing stopping anyone from doing it.

What kind of people who want to make a statement use teenagers instead of successful business people? I will tell. People who are looking to manipulate, not get to the truth.

You project a lot of anger into something that is not what you describe.

How about this: What kind of people use the human flaws and foibles that are common to teenagers, MIT graduates, and successful business people to foist upon them for personal gain a system of predictions that has never been demonstrated to work and which they will not even bother to define? I will tell you. People who are looking to manipulate, to prey upon, and to profit.

So tell me, please: what grounds do you have for your question and statement that does not apply as well or better to mine?

That study was conducted on my class when I was in college and about half did not fall for it. But it was given to us by an authority figure who had been teaching us all semester so many just took his word for it without any analysis.

Excellent. So not everyone is manipulated in the same way. I wonder where Forer claimed they would be...

Forer is a manipulation, not a test.

You have a strange idea of science if you think that the manipulation itself cannot be what is tested. Milgram's studies were manipulative on purpose, yet they were studies nonetheless, and valid ones. Ones which began to demonstrate the depths to which people will stoop in the face of authority.

Are not your astrologers authorities? You insist we find experts, so by definition they are authorities, and they present as such. What better way to test how someone responds to an authority figure than to test how they respond to an authority figure?

The astrologer tells you that you will leave your job for a new, better position in six months. You track it. It is an incredible stretch to suggest that most people will think that did happen when it didn't. As I say, my mother is either dead, in which case the astrologer was correct or she is not.

I get it. Anything that isn't predictive of events isn't astrology.

As to your mother, I apologize if using her example seems harsh, but you brought that example in specifically for that purpose so here goes:

I do not doubt that your mother is dead. The questions that remain unanswered are, in part, these:

1. What, precisely, was the prediction, i.e., what was the exact phrasing, given on what date, and how have you ensured that your memory of it is not faulty?

2. To what degree did the prediction match the reality? You said the astrologer said she would die in 15 years, yet the dates you gave indicate 14 years, so already there is some inaccuracy. What degree of inaccuracy is still accurate?

3. How many other predictions were made? And what was their success rate? How many of them were specific and how many general?

That, of course, leaves out the whole idea of how many predictions are made daily versus how many actually come true (remembering hits, etc.).

There's more, but that'll do for now.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Astrology? Seriously? I think the only thing more laughable than taking Astrology seriously would be getting your financial advice from a fortune cookie.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

Humm...

This has been explained. See prior posts.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

Astrology? Seriously? I think the only thing more laughable than taking Astrology seriously would be getting your financial advice from a fortune cookie.

One day you'll get of of that box.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

One day you'll get of of that box.

Of rational thinking? I'll stay here, It's cozy and bedded with evidence.

Care to share any? non anecdotal if you please.

 

[AdamSK]

For the third time - when was the first time that the prediction about your mother's death was recorded? Written down, appears on tape, etc? At the time the prediction was made? Years later? After your mother had already died? When?

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

What, in astrology, is the equivalent of hitting at 105 mph?
Answer that question before your deride others not researching it.
Your objection to Forer is that he didn't study this, but he never claimed to be.

Predicting someone's future.

I've derided no one. I have suggested it should be researched.

No. My objection to Forer is that he used young college students instead of MIT professors or Apple Engineers or randomly selected adults with a college education, that he presented a chart that used vague, ill-defined definitions that could pertain to anyone ("you like people, like to have long conversations") and that the chart was delivered by an authority figure that students had been relying on for accurate information.

But what I have been asking you for is to define the claims, which you are finally beginning to put out there. So astrology is "making accurate predictions." Excellent. Do you have criteria for what makes an accurate prediction or is that something we should refine here? This is not a facetious question; it is, in fact, central to what you want Western scientists to do.

You are asking me to define what it means to be accurate?

Then, of course, is your recurring observations. You continue to use it as a substitute for evidence.

There is no evidence. If we had evidence, we would not be having this discussion. You have none. I have observational evidence, which is important, but insufficient to satisfy journal or peer review requirements.

>I can't tell you what Vedic Astrology is except that it makes accurate predictions."

This makes no sense.

>Then you've opened it back up to Western astrology and even to the newspaper horoscope writers because there are people who vouch loudly and longly about those, too.

I have stated no strong opinion on western astrology, I'm just not familiar with it. It could be bogus. I have not opened it up to western astrology. I'm not suggesting anyone study that.

>Why? Why do you dismiss astrology as a personality predictor?

I'm not dismissing it. Because what I have been sent on this site I have concluded that it is mostly concerned with personality traits, and I don't see the utility of going to somebody who will then tell me about my personality. I know my own personality, and even if I don't and the astrologer tells me I'm shy, of what use is that?

>And your criteria so far is simply that the client vouches for the astrologer.

How do you manage to misrepresent just about every statement I make? Having intelligent clients suggest that an certain astrologer is accurate is one important first step to determining whether the guy participating in the study might possibly have the required skill.

Let's see if this guy can hit a 100 mph fastball, and if he can, we can study him to see if he can go to 105 mph. Qualifying the subjects for a study is routine in science except where science might be threatened---then they gather up high school kids, throw at 105 and conclude, "see, we were right all along. Batters can't hit at 105 mph."

>Yes, you keep repeating this yet you can point to no flaws except that you don't like his chosen audience, and even for that you cannot actually support your objection.

I've typed out the flaws multiple times. There are many. See above.

>Showing that people will fall for generalities is useless?

(1) Showing that 19 year olds will fall for generalities is useless. (2) Having the info presented by their professor or other authority figure is useless. (3) Presenting information that could easily pertain to anyone ("you like people") as opposed to "your mother will die, you will hurt your leg" is useless. (4) A chart that tells people about personality seems useless because personality traits are poorly defined. I understand "your mother will die." I don't know exactly what "you are shy" means, exactly.

>Has anyone with the appropriate credentials either (a) pointed out the flaws you claim with Forer, or (b) conducted an experiment like you describe? There's nothing stopping anyone from doing it.

The entire point I'm making is that you can't rely on credentialed people when you get to areas outside of the science paradigm and the second point is that this study is so deeply flawed it leaps out at you.

>You project a lot of anger into something that is not what you describe.

I don't agree with you so I'm angry? Okay.

>a system of predictions that has never been demonstrated to work and which they will not even bother to define?

It has been demonstrated to work, for me, for thousands of others. It has not been formally objectively tested.

>I will tell you. People who are looking to manipulate, to prey upon, and to profit.

That is what they have taught you to believe. You have no evidence for the claim.

>You have a strange idea of science if you think that the manipulation itself cannot be what is tested.

I think it can. Just not Forer, which was ridiculous. In the case of predictions, manipulation is going to be difficult because the events predicted will unfold over a year or longer and so the guy doing the manipulation will not be present. As I say, either my Mother is dead or she is not.

Are not your astrologers authorities?

They are authorities in astrology, but not authorities to the clients who have paid them, who are getting a reading. If anything, the reverse effect is in play. People walk in skeptical.

>I get it. Anything that isn't predictive of events isn't astrology.

I do not make that claim.

>I do not doubt that your mother is dead. The questions that remain unanswered are, in part, these:

We can not resolve the issue of astrology based on my claims about the predictions of my mother death. And we can't resolve it anecdotally. And this is one example of many I have. However, I'm not suggesting that because I have a certain experience, astrology is valid. I am suggesting that since thousands have an experience, there is sufficient reason to study to see if astrology is valid.

This is true for other claims of this nature. Off topic, but there is a guy on TV who claims to talk to the dead (Tyler Henry I think is the name). He has an impressive record of telling people things he could not possibly know from conventional means. That hundreds of successful people (no 19 year old college kids) take him seriously makes the phenomena worth studying. And if we did study it, the first step would be to identify people who claim to be mediums for which there is evidence of some success. There is some credibility. That has not been done with astrology.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

For the third time - when was the first time that the prediction about your mother's death was recorded? Written down, appears on tape, etc? At the time the prediction was made? Years later? After your mother had already died? When?

Already answered in the post above this one. You can't reach any conclusion anecdotally so my mother does not matter.

I was told about my mother's death by a Vedic astrologer who was not particularly good (and happens to live in Sedona) in 1993. I did not write this particular prediction down, and I'm not offering this claim as evidence.

I offered this claim to refute the idea of "cognitive bias." That bias might work to cause me to accept personality traits ("you are a wonderful person"), but not over the matter of whether my Mother is dead. If you predict that, it will come true not, there is no gray area.