Debunking Astrology besides newspapers Sun Signs

[Frank McLaughlin]

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

Care to share any? non anecdotal if you please.

You don't have any evidence. The box is that you think you do.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

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.



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



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.

No one talks to the dead. Do try to keep up.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

You don't have any evidence. The box is that you think you do.

Oh you and your adorable quips.

When I need to research something I don't understand I always go with peer reviewed journals, For example the link below; Warning link contains actual science.
https://aas.org/publications/publishing



Come back with something even remotely near that caliber that backs up your quarter a piece Zoltar astrology readings.

 

[Resume]

No one talks to the dead. Do try to keep up.

Well, technically . . . you can talk to them all you like; it's getting answers that's the rub.

So far, nada.

 

[arthwollipot]

...On March 21 if you look east as the sun rises, the constellation you see on the horizon in 2016 is Pisces, about to change to Aquarius. The symbol for Pisces is a fish, and the age is concerned with water, sailing ships at sea. This may be why the ancient Christians used a fish as their symbol. The belief is that every age brings a new more advanced spiritual teaching as mankind evolves. Christ would have come to usher in the Piscean age, that new teaching, love etc.

Interestingly, Aquarius is the new teaching about inner vision, enlightenment, spiritual consciousness. We are seeing that starting to be in evidence with an interest in meditation, yoga, etc...

Not in Indian astrology it isn't.

When Vedic astrology contradicts something in Western astrology (which is the only kind that uses the Western zodiac), which do you believe?

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Not in Indian astrology it isn't.

When Vedic astrology contradicts something in Western astrology (which is the only kind that uses the Western zodiac), which do you believe?

I assume which ever is the easiest to shoe horn post hoc.

 

[Pixel42]

The point established by Forer's experiment is simply that someone rating a reading as accurate does not mean it's more accurate than would be expected by chance. The many reproductions (not just with students) give a baseline; if people will give any reading an average score for accuracy of 4.2 out of 5 then readings obtained using a method which it is claimed will produce readings more accurate than chance must consistently produce scores significantly higher than 4.2. You can't just trust your gut instinct to tell you that a reading is more accurate than chance, you need to measure it. Or you need to eliminate the Forer Effect altogether by doing a blind test.

We all have cognitive biases. We can all be inadvertantly fooled by them. That's why the scientific method had to be invented.

 

[Garrette]

{NB: I realize this is too long, and it’s annoying for such posts. I’ll attempt to curb my posts in future}

Predicting someone's future.

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

You have derided Western science and its practicioners quite regularly, but it’s no matter.

As to your suggestions “it should be researched,” it is more accurate to say that you have insisted that Western scientists research a claim that no one will define by studying experts no one can find. You did say it’s a million to one shot that they find them, except that you found them.

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,

He never claimed he did otherwise. Neither did the replications. In fact, they all state that this is a limitation on the findings. Your objection is that the study is as limited as it claims to be.

that he presented a chart that used vague, ill-defined definitions that could pertain to anyone ("you like people, like to have long conversations")

That was rather the point – that people accept general statements as if they are specific while not knowing that they do so (or to be more precise, that college students, even intelligent psychology majors, do so). That you insist this is useless or manipulative does not make it so.

and that the chart was delivered by an authority figure that students had been relying on for accurate information.

If you were to read the actual study and its replications, the fact that it is an authority figure is not only mentioned but mentioned as central to the findings, i.e., the presence of an authority figure is key to the effect in this setting. The fact you not only find this problematic is baffling. The fact that earlier you denied that expert astrologers are stand-ins for authority figures which lends itself to the same issues is astounding.

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

Yes, and I used your own example to demonstrate why. Is 14 the same as 15?

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.

Is observational evidence evidence or is it not evidence?

Separate from that, if there is no evidence, and there is no practicioner actually making a claim, on what basis do you insist that someone else spend their resources to study this undefined phenomenon?

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

This makes no sense.

Precisely. It’s what you have been saying, and it 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.

Nonsense. You started out claiming it can’t work. You’ve continued claiming that astrology does not describe personalities. You ignore that there is as much “observational evidence” for Western astrology as there is for Vedic. It is only when pressed on such issues that you retreat without admitting error or inconsistency.

>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?

Ah. Then I retract that part of my earlier comment just above. Let’s pursue the usefulness of a personality predictor. Suppose I am a business owner whose product is best produced by people with certain personality traits. Would it no behoove me to hire the particular sign with the particular determinants that indicate those personality traits? I’m sure there are more applications, but that one comes swiftly to mind.

>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.

There is no misrepresentation at all. What you said in response echoes exactly what I said. Your “observational evidence” comprises favorable client anecdotes.

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."

This is not what you are suggesting for studying Vedic astrology because you cannot define the equivalent target speed. No one in the field has done so, either. “Accurate predictions” is not a starting point; it is useless vagueness. The equivalent in your baseball analogy is not “105 mph fastball.” It is “can throw.”

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

No. You have typed out your objections which amount to you not liking what was studied. You have identified no flaws. Your objections indicate you do not actually understand the study.

(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.

(1) Assume you are correct that it is useless; that is not the same as the study being flawed, but we fundamentally disagree that it is useless.
(2) Ditto plus the authority figure part is central to the study and replications
(3) Ditto plus it is central to the study and replications
(4) “Seems useless” to you is not the same as “is useless.” See my small business owner example above. Circle it back to the individual applying for a job, Knowing my personality type and traits could point me to an appropriate profession. That is certainly not useless. Moreover, you are demanding an accuracy here that you are refusing to define for Vedic astrology. I ask again: Does 14 equal 15?

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.

Studying human behavior is not outside “the science paradigm.” I suggest there is very little that is; certainly there is nothing presented in this thread that is.

As to your second point, see comments above. You have pointed out no flaws, merely a dislike for the study’s purpose.

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

Why you are angry is unknown to me, though I can speculate. Regardless, you were projecting your anger there, yes.

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

How have you eliminated mundane explanations for what you experienced? To put it another way, how have you determined that you are not making the same error that the college students were making in Forer’s study or the same error that adult, educated, businessmen who follow Western astrology without bowing to authority figures are making?

If your response is that your readings were accurate while the others were not, then I must ask again: Does 14 equal 15?

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

That was rather the point in that example. My comment mirrored yours. Why is your comment allowed and my equivalent not?

I think it can. Just not Forer, which was ridiculous.

Your reiterations do not make it fact.

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.

When does the payment occur? When do the refunds happen?

As I say, either my Mother is dead or she is not.

Does 14 equal 15?

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.

Absolute nonsense. People take cars to mechanics and are skeptical yet the mechanics are still the authority. People go to medical doctors and are skeptical yet the doctors are the authority.

And if you want to stick by this standard then you must revise your assessment of Forer. Students walk into class skeptical. If people are skeptical from astrology readings from astrologers, then they must be doubly skeptical of astrology readings from psychology professors.

I cannot emphasise enough: This is absolute nonsense.

I do not make that claim.

You have, but if you no longer do, then fine. I retract.

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.

And finally we come close to agreement. But only close.

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.

No. He may have an impressive record of appearing to tell people things he could not possibly know from conventional means. Such feats are replicated all the time. I’ve done it. I can still do it.

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.

Setting aside that there have been studies into specific claims, and that those conducted by scientists favorable to the claims have been shown to be ridiculously flawed (Gary Schwartz; “The Afterlife Experiments”) there will be credibility when the following actually happen, and you won’t like the first:

1. “It” is defined. The talking to the dead piece is out, as it is both undemonstrable and irrelevant to the result. It is the information he provides, so the claim is really “provides information not possibly known through mundane means.”

2. Steps are taken by those, like you, with an interest in it to do the initial vetting. Hint: a television show is not remotely evidence for any such thing.

3. The identified experts agree to be tested. They have shown a remarkable resistance to such a thing, as I suspect your expert astrologers would.

 

[lpetrich]

What is your criteria for a "professional astrologer?"

Why don't you tell us your criteria?
Criteria for distinguishing a professional astrologer from a non-professional one. It's your claim, so you justify it.

Analyze exactly what statistically? Astrology claims are unique to an individual so this does not make sense. ...

One can do statistics on best fit per individual. Like if one has a theory of how well one can predict various personality features.

Like if one believes that fire and air signs make one extroverted and earth and water signs make one introverted. One would get Aries: extroverted, Taurus: introverted, with the other Sun Signs alternating in this fashion. One would then quiz one's experimental subjects on how extroverted or introverted they are, and compare their resulting extroversion indices to their Sun Signs. One can also test for other combinations of extroversion and introversion among the Sun Signs, and one can do the same for full-scale horoscopes.

Like testing whether Venus and Jupiter will make you extroverted and whether Mars and Saturn will make you introverted. A Venus-Jupiter conjunction, trine, or sextile would enhance their inducing of extroversion, making you extroverted, while an opposition or a square would reduce their inducing of extroversion, making you introverted.

Astrology readings have false predictions, information that is not true or not exactly true for the same reason that a great hitter gets on base only 33% of the time.

In other words, the stars incline but they do not compel.

But they don't have to compel. They only have to incline by some statistically significant amount. In fact, statistics is a branch of mathematics for testing for the presence of influences that incline without compelling.

 

[AdamSK]

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.

I am saying that, since the prediction was not written down, it is quite likely that you are mis-remembering it. In the absence of a recording of some kind (that is, transmission only by memory and oral history), it is practically impossible to correctly remember something that was said fifteen years ago.

It is more likely that the Vedic astrologer made a prediction that was either more vague or less exact than what you now "remember" the astrologer saying - and after your mother passed, you reinterpreted the prediction to be as precise as you now "remember" it to be. And, yes, that is actually an example of cognitive bias.

 

[steenkh]

Frank McLaughlin, could you give an example of how a good astrologer in your opinion writes predictions? We have only heard of one example, and that was about the death of your mother, and that was from an astrologer that you rated not very good.

Exactly how accurate are predictions from real top-notch astrologers? How many predictions do they make in a session? Is there absolutely no vague filler material interspersed between predictions? No personality traits mentioned?

 

[lpetrich]

To continue with my extrovert - introvert astrological hypothesis, an extrovert planet in an extrovert sign (Venus in Aries, for instance) will make one extroverted, while an introvert planet in an introvert sign (Mars in Taurus, for instance) will make one introverted.

But since there are several possible combinations, one has to add them up, with some planet locations and some aspects pushing toward extroversion and some others of them pushing toward introversion.

Isn't it fun to make up astrological predictions?

Also, what makes "Vedic astrology" Vedic? What parts of the Vedas support Vedic astrology?

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

To continue with my extrovert - introvert astrological hypothesis, an extrovert planet in an extrovert sign (Venus in Aries, for instance) will make one extroverted, while an introvert planet in an introvert sign (Mars in Taurus, for instance) will make one introverted.

But since there are several possible combinations, one has to add them up, with some planet locations and some aspects pushing toward extroversion and some others of them pushing toward introversion.

Isn't it fun to make up astrological predictions?

Also, what makes "Vedic astrology" Vedic? What parts of the Vedas support Vedic astrology?

One of the most common tactics in cold reading is indeed the use of introvert/extrovert duality present in most people. "At times you're pretty reserved and don't like to stir things up too much, yet at other times you can be the life of the party and have everyone pay attention to you.

It works very well because it not only fits most anyone, but it also appears to be precisely personalized.

 

[lpetrich]

In other words, "sometimes you're extroverted and sometimes you're introverted." Something that's true of nearly everybody, and thus not very falsifiable.

While "you are typically extroverted" and "you are typically introverted" and "you are somewhere in between" are much more falsifiable.

 

[Meadmaker]

You are telling me astrologers in India made predictions and their clients reported that those predictions came true, but in fact they didn't come true, and the discrepancy is an "artifact of cognitive bias?" What? An astrologer tells me my mother will die this fall. Fall comes, and I think my mother is dead, but she's not. It's just my cognitive bias. I report to the western scientists looking to conduct an objective study that this astrologer is qualified...but he's really not cause my mother didn't really die.

An aside to fellow skeptics. I listened to a few people who had been to astrologers. Among people fourty to fifty years old who had gone to astrologers, I was initially surprised to learn how many had predicted the death of a client's parent.

Of course, the people I talked to included mostly people for whom the astrologers had made a correct prediction. They were right about their mother dying. She really did die.

Those clients kept going back to the astrologers.

 

[AcesHigh]

One day you'll get of of that box.

one day you will get out of that box that prevents you from believing in unicorns and the invisible lime-green teapot orbiting Saturn!

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

From first hit on a google search: "The oldest world map ever found was made in Babylon. It shows the world as a round disc surrounded by an ocean of bitter waters."

My understanding is that Vedic Astrology, called Jyotish, was invented in India well before Babylon and Sumer.

 

[Belz...]

Talk about a blast from the past. Relevance?

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

My belief has nothing to do with it. Making false or misleading comparisons (false equivalence and false analogy) noted.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

As an aside to Meadmaker, in my experience with Vedic (India) astrologers they won't ever tell you about anyone's death. I was told by an American astrologer practicing Indian astrology when my mother would die approximate 30 years before her death. I was in my 30s. She picked a range of years, not the exact year so you could understandably dismiss this as not precise enough.