Debunking Astrology besides newspapers Sun Signs

[Delvo]

India?! Please. Everybody knows the best true astrologers are all Scotsmen.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

No, though I could do so to a degree you would probably find surprising yet still to a degree that makes me far less than an expert. I do not go seeking astrologers' claims to rebut; I look at evidence -- pro and con -- for the claims that are made, and many have been made here and elsewhere.

If there is no claim that you are defending -- or at least referencing -- then there is no claim for me to investigate. I will not define the claims for you.

You will not find any evidence pro or con. You can find observational evidence. What needs to be tested is the predictive ability of astrologers who have first been determined to be qualified, observationally. Going to India and rounding up some astrologers is a one million to one shot.

There is certainly no objective evidence for it that withstands scrutiny Objective evidence against it is another matter. You might begin with Carlson's paper in Nature....Or perhaps you will dismiss it because it isn't the right kind of astrology.

What you are calling "objective evidence" is for me sloppy research beyond all measure. You accept them because it supports your worldview.

There are different kinds of astrology, and to launch into a study without that understanding is ridiculous. If I want to study the Catholic faith, I could get involved interviewing the superstitious Mexican women on their knees crawling toward the altar or I could examine the sublime philosophy of Aquinas or St. John of the Cross. I'm telling you in the case of astrology, stop interviewing the superstitious women.

Or, more appropriately, those who claim legitimacy for the field could identify their own experts and conduct their own studies to demonstrate its efficacy.

No one claiming expertise in astrology is going to have credibility conducting their own studies, and I doubt they would have the interest. But I do think it is in the interest of western science to explore claims such as those made by astrology.

>If they are appropriately conducted the studies would provide evidence for or against; that has value.

Agreed. Our disagreement is over what constitutes "appropriately conducted."

>More to the point, you seem to dismiss this system of astrology with less evidence than we have against it and for which you criticize us. Where does your knowledge of the uselessness of Sedona astrologers come from?

I have no strong opinion about western astrology. I don't know much about it. (Actually, I thought I knew more than I apparently do and I've adjusted based on what people have written about it here. Western astrology may have some validity, but the research sent to me suggests that there could be real problems with it). My reference to Sedona was not meant to be taken literally. I meant this new age town as as stand in for the fact that anybody can claim to be an astrologer based on little knowledge or study. There are dozens of such astrology businesses there, and I assume (with little hard evidence) that these people have or no real knowledge. I'm open to be wrong.

My knowledge that most "Sedona astrologers" are useless also comes from people I've met, and---as previously explained--(1) the lack of adjustment to account for Precession and (2) the fact that it appears to be based entirely on psychological traits, which seems useless to me.

I was not dismissing it so much as accepting the arguments presented and saying "okay, maybe you are right, let's move on."

There is observational evidence that the Loch Ness Monster exists which is on a par with any formally presented evidence that astrology works. Is this observational evidence separate from or included in your earlier statement that so far as you know there are no formal studies supporting astrology?

Actually, there isn't. There never was other than one obviously fake photo. The claim itself can be dismissed out of hand as ridiculous.

But I think you are really asking me, from the millions of claims that are made by various groups each year, on a thousands different topics, from dark energy to Bigfoot to who caused 911 to space aliens to whether Hillary's email server broke the law, you are asking how do I decide what is real. And the answer is I use the same process you do. The difference is that I recognize that there are a million laws of nature and levels of existence yet to be discovered, laws of nature that we don't yet understand, and just because science hasn't objectively figured something out does not mean it is not true. Maybe those people on TV really do talk to the dead, why not? That's where you and I part ways.

I see a continual bias in science to keep from accepting things outside of the science box: you can see that in the ridicule of plate tectonics for decades or the rejection of pre-Clovis human populations in the Americas.

Astrology, pre-Clovis. Same principle in operation. Science refutes out of hand what they don't want to be true.

“‘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

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

You might wish to check for consistency here.

Anticipating your "gotcha" as opposed to addressing my argument, I added "usually."

The chart changes entirely every two hours. If you are close to that two hour window, a minute matters enormously. If you were born during the other 110 minutes in between one constellation to the next, it is of little overall consequence.

So for you and Rush, it apparently matters. For most it does not matter.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

>Can astrologers do any better than the Oracle of Delphi and Alexander of Abonutichus in those infamous incidents?

You certainly won't find the answer by obtaining a horoscope from a website or a random astrologer. That tells you nothing about astrology, any more than watching my son's 7th grade baseball team tells you much about whether a human can hit a 100 mph fastball.

 

[steenkh]

You certainly won't find the answer by obtaining a horoscope from a website or a random astrologer. That tells you nothing about astrology, any more than watching my son's 7th grade baseball team tells you much about whether a human can hit a 100 mph fastball.

So how exactly do we find those super astrologers that are able to produce accurate predictions?

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~frosales/html/zodiac/

This is what I was referring to, that the constellations don't reflect the zodiac as created, and some of the original ones are missing.

The earth in its rotation wobbles slowly like a spinning top. This causes the apparent motion of the stars in the sky to rotate backwards as viewed from earth---1 degree every 72 years or one zodiac sign every 2160 years. This is what is meant by the "age" we are in (Age of Aquarius, Age of Pisces, etc).

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.

Western astrology does not account for this background movement of the stars, the shift of the calendar dates that define a constellation. Since the time of the ancient Greeks, the sun has shifted about 21 days against the background constellations (what was dates for Aries for the Greeks, those dates are now Taurus).

 

[Delvo]

Where are we to find the good astrologers and how are we to distinguish between them and the bad ones? (The real, actual answer would be to base it on results alone: the good ones get specific accurate results and the bad ones don't... but that's a standard you're clearly telling us we're not allowed to use, because what it tells us is that there are no good ones anyway, and because you apparently want this filter applied before a study can begin, to choose the participants, instead of afterward based on the results.)

The difference is that I recognize that there are a million laws of nature and levels of existence yet to be discovered, laws of nature that we don't yet understand, and just because science hasn't objectively figured something out does not mean it is not true.

You fail to distinguish between a mere lack of any evidence that something's there and the presence of evidence that there's nothing there.

You also treat certain favorite evidence-free claims as the default presumption for no reason beyond the fact that someone has claimed them, thus treating the burden of proof as being on anyone who doesn't accept them with no evidence (also known as "on faith"). The actual default presumption is that there's nothing there and the burden of proof is on those who say there is.

Maybe those people on TV really do talk to the dead, why not?

Because the results they get tell us they don't. (And because the methods by which they fake it are known and easily observable.) This isn't something that hasn't already been checked.

I see a continual bias in science to keep from accepting things outside of the science box: you can see that in the ridicule of plate tectonics for decades or the rejection of pre-Clovis human populations in the Americas.

Back to lying about science & scientists again. Still fooling nobody. (And if you're tempted to try the hopeless "Ad hominem!" wail again, perhaps you should look up what that actually means first this time.)

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

So how exactly do we find those super astrologers that are able to produce accurate predictions?

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.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

So what do astrologers say to customers who cannot determine their birth minute or even their birth hour? Are they rejected and told that no horoscope can be constructed because it would be off by too much?

A chart can be "rectified" if key dates are know such as marriage, birth of child, death of parent.

 

[Pixel42]

How have you (or the studies' authors) determined what constitutes a "real astrologer?" How about you define that scientific term? Is someone an astrologer because they say they are or do you have a criteria?

I don't know how the studies which require readings produced by actual astrologers choose them, I would guess they go to whatever professional organisations exist and ask for volunteers. But yes, they assume that professional astrologers are following the rules for interpreting charts reasonably competently.

Many (probably most) of the studies don't require astrologers because they test the claims made for astrology directly by collecting data and analysing it statistically. A good example is the famous 'time twins' study that was done a few years ago; it used the data collected for a massive health study which was started in the 1950s. Pairs of 'time twins' were identified (people born in the same town within 5 minutes of each other) and they were then compared with each other, and with the rest of their cohort, across a wide range of criteria for which they had data. There was no difference, i.e. people born at exactly the same time and place were no more alike in any respect than people born at different ones.

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.

You are losing me.

You clearly have no knowledge of the cognitive biases I am talking about. That's OK, few people do.

The human brain is hard wired to look for patterns and attach significance to them; to pick out the signal and ignore the noise. It is so good at it that it will sometimes think it sees a signal where there is in fact only noise, because false positives are not as potentially dangerous as false negatives. It's better to mistake a shadow for a bear than a bear for a shadow.

In the example you give the astrologer would have made many predictions, one of which was probably something like "someone close to you will die soon". When the subject's mother died they interpreted that as confirmation of the astrologer's prediction (I leave it to you to think of all the other ways in which that prediction might have come true). Meanwhile other predictions which didn't come true are forgotten; they are the noise, the one that can be interpreted as correct becomes the signal.

This is why blind tests are done to eliminate this bias. Give 5 subjects 5 readings, one of which is theirs, and ask them to pick out the one that seems the most accurate. If there is any truth to astrology at all then the subject will be able to identify theirs because it will have more predictions that can be interpreted as correct. But if all that's going on is the Forer Effect then the one that happens to be the most accurate will be the subject's own no more often than would be expected by chance, i.e. on average only one of the 5 subjects will pick the correct reading. The latter is what actually happens.

Here are a couple of good articles on cognitive biases:

Confirmation bias

Subjective validation

 

[stanfr]

Did that encourage her to sleep with you? Because there's a lot of opportunity there.

In that sense, I have seen that astrology does indeed work! I had a roommate in college who was not exactly handsome (to put it politely), but man, he had a way with the ladies! He was an 'expert' in astrology, and would routinely invite attractive sorority girls for a personal astrology reading--which usually consisted of him telling them they were sexually repressed and needed to lighten up in order to fulfill their great destinies. Worked every time, like a charm! I learned a lot from him...

 

[Garrette]

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

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.

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.

Yep.

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.

I think the majority of great magicians do not hold this stance. I am interested in which ones you think do. Of course, most great magicians will say it is extremely difficult and that very few have mastered it, perhaps as few as three or four. More importantly, most great magicians will say that the center deal is unnecessary for all but perhaps one or two effects developed specifically for it or for actual gambling cheats. They will go on to say that the appearance of performing a center deal is much easier to obtain and perhaps more useful.

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.

No. We would convince ourselves that none of those magicians can do a center deal and that without proper evidence there is no reason to believe that others can.

The key difference in this aspect of the discussion isn't the lack of discovery in regard to a center deal; it is in regard to a definition of what we are looking for. We know what a center deal is; with your hypothetical 50 magicians we know who claims to be able to do it. With your Vedic astrology we do not even know what it is because no one, not even you, will tell us what it is, and no one, not even you, will tell us who the great astrologers are.

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.

Ricky Jay did not find the guy in Missouri. It was Charlie Miller and Dai Vernon who went looking for Alan Kennedy, and it was Vernon who found him. Vernon told the story to Ricky Jay, and possibly it was Vernon who taught his version to Ricky Jay. Of course, others have said that Vernon's version doesn't really work (Tony Giorgio, in fact, claimed that what Vernon did wasn't really a Center Deal at all). It doesn't really matter, I suppose, as there are other undisputed versions, e.g. Fred Robinson's. And on 52 Assistants, it is debatable that what Ricky Jay does is actually a Center Deal. It may be; I am not skilled enough to determine it by watching that video, but I do know that it did not HAVE to be a Center Deal, particularly as it resembles a Darwin Ortiz routine meant to give the appearance and not the actuality of one. Note that I am not decrying Ricky Jay's skills at all; if I had to create a list of masters most likely capable of a perfect center deal, RJ would be near the top.

This isn't as off topic as it seems since it involves claims of an ability, the appearance of which can be achieved by doing something other than what is claimed. Harry Lorayne, in fact, tells a story when he performed his own Poker Deal and was amused when afterwards another skilled magician told Harry that he (Harry) had the best center deal he had ever seen.

I've seen astrology work

Work how? What was your observation? What, precisely, did you see that was unexplainable without resort to astrology?

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.

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?

 

[Garrette]

Anticipating your "gotcha" as opposed to addressing my argument, I added "usually."

Not a gotcha. I was quite open about what I had seen, and I made my posts before you made your two conflicting ones. Do not lay at my feet the flaws you have in your own argument.

The chart changes entirely every two hours. If you are close to that two hour window, a minute matters enormously.

Great. We are approaching a workable definition of the precision required.

If you were born during the other 110 minutes in between one constellation to the next, it is of little overall consequence.

119, you mean?

So for you and Rush, it apparently matters. For most it does not matter.

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?

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

You post in a hash so that it is indecipherable until the code is given (I'm using terms I've heard others use; I don't really know the technicalities of it) the two hour blocks on January 12th, 1951, during which the exact minute makes no difference. Be sure that there is no overlap.

Our other poster posts in a hash his exact birth time.

Once both are posted, the keys can be provided to decipher them. We then compare the poster's birth time to Limbaugh's birth time and see if they fall within the same two hour block of time or not.

Are you game?

 

[Garrette]

You will not find any evidence pro or con. You can find observational evidence. What needs to be tested is the predictive ability of astrologers who have first been determined to be qualified, observationally. Going to India and rounding up some astrologers is a one million to one shot.

Three points:

1. What do you mean by observational evidence in light of the fact that you say there is no evidence? What it appears to be is that you are claiming there is no evidence so that you do not have to discuss it, but you place "observation" in its stead. In other words, you claim that observation is not evidence while simultaneously implying it gives the same result as evidence. This doesn't fly.

2. It's a one million to one shot yet you have overcome those odds. You have claimed to have seen astrology work, so you must have overcome those odds. How did you do so?

3. It is not the job of the skeptics or the scientific community to seek out the true experts, particularly as no one will define precisely what it is that the are expert at. Have them come forward, or have those -- like you -- who have found them come forward and present the evidence. Until then, it remains unevidenced claims.

What you are calling "objective evidence" is for me sloppy research beyond all measure. You accept them because it supports your worldview.

Assume for a moment that you are correct about me (you're not, but I'll let it slide for now). How have you ensured that you do not reject it because it challenges your worldview?

There are different kinds of astrology, and to launch into a study without that understanding is ridiculous.

Absolutely agreed, but you have not demonstrated that this has happened. The Forer study and those like it tested the astrological claims they tested, not all of them. What evidence do you have that shows they did otherwise?

If I want to study the Catholic faith, I could get involved interviewing the superstitious Mexican women on their knees crawling toward the altar or I could examine the sublime philosophy of Aquinas or St. John of the Cross.

True. What evidence do you have that this analogy is appropriate in regard to the astrological studies? Did Forer investigate Vedic astrology? No, he did not. Did he make claims about Vedic astrology? No, he did not.

I'm telling you in the case of astrology, stop interviewing the superstitious women.

Two points:

1. If the superstitious women are the subject of my study, then that is what I study.

2. If you want me to study expert Vedic astrologers practicing expert Vedic astrology then by all means tell me precisely what expert Vedic astrology entails and where I find expert Vedic astrologers. I understand that the second part might be difficult; failure to provide the first part, however, is already a red flag.

No one claiming expertise in astrology is going to have credibility conducting their own studies, and I doubt they would have the interest.

There are no reputable Indian scientists who believe in Vedic astrology who will study it and publish their results? No one is asking the astrologers themselves to conduct studies on themselves. Given how widespread, even in official government circles, the belief in Vedic astrology is in India, I find it difficult to believe that there are no scientists there willing to study it.

But I do think it is in the interest of western science to explore claims such as those made by astrology.

What claims? You won't tell us. They won't tell us. No one will tell us.

So far, the sum and substance of the claim is: astrology works, but not the Western stuff. I am not being flippant. That is all you have said; that is all anyone says when the questioner is one who wants to study it objectively.

f they are appropriately conducted the studies would provide evidence for or against; that has value.

True. Tell us what claims are to be studied and tell us what the appropriate protocols are. That would be the basis for a fine discussion.

I have no strong opinion about western astrology. I don't know much about it. (Actually, I thought I knew more than I apparently do and I've adjusted based on what people have written about it here. Western astrology may have some validity, but the research sent to me suggests that there could be real problems with it).

Excellent. Such admissions are admirable. (I mean that sincerely, not facetiously).

My reference to Sedona was not meant to be taken literally. I meant this new age town as as stand in for the fact that anybody can claim to be an astrologer based on little knowledge or study. There are dozens of such astrology businesses there, and I assume (with little hard evidence) that these people have or no real knowledge. I'm open to be wrong.

I think we agree here.

My knowledge that most "Sedona astrologers" are useless also comes from people I've met, and---as previously explained--(1) the lack of adjustment to account for Precession and (2) the fact that it appears to be based entirely on psychological traits, which seems useless to me.

I was not dismissing it so much as accepting the arguments presented and saying "okay, maybe you are right, let's move on."

Okay.

Actually, there isn't. There never was other than one obviously fake photo. The claim itself can be dismissed out of hand as ridiculous.

This is a hypocritical standard when compared to what you have said on this thread in regard to Vedic astrology. Compare:

There is no evidence for Vedic astrology. but there are observations (your position).

There is no evidence for the Loch Ness Monster, but there are certainly observations (my position).

There is certainly more than one photo support of the LNM. There are anecdotes galore detailing observations. There are books. There are documentaries. There is, in fact, the same type of evidence as for Vedic astrology, which -- so far as I know -- lacks even a photograph.

But I think you are really asking me, from the millions of claims that are made by various groups each year, on a thousands different topics, from dark energy to Bigfoot to who caused 911 to space aliens to whether Hillary's email server broke the law, you are asking how do I decide what is real.

Yes. Thank you for recognizing that.

And the answer is I use the same process you do.

I am sure this is true in regard to many things, but I doubt it is true in regard to this.

The difference is that I recognize that there are a million laws of nature and levels of existence yet to be discovered, laws of nature that we don't yet understand,

You presume far too much when you make this claim without me -- a claim that is not only flatly wrong but entirely without any evidence upon which you can base it.

and just because science hasn't objectively figured something out does not mean it is not true.

Perhaps the difference isn't this (which I know and have long accepted), but that I recognize that just because a lot of people claim a lot of anecdotal evidence for something does not mean it is true.

Maybe those people on TV really do talk to the dead, why not? That's where you and I part ways.

There are lots of why nots, but to keep it strictly scientific, that isn't our argument here. Rather, the argument is that none of them -- and I mean absolutely none of them -- have done anything which requires the assumption that they speak with the dead, and that nearly all the items that are claimed as positive evidence are consistent with known mundane explanations.

I see a continual bias in science to keep from accepting things outside of the science box: you can see that in the ridicule of plate tectonics for decades or the rejection of pre-Clovis human populations in the Americas.

Ah. Science isn't perfect and is slow to accept new ideas. Sometimes very true. On the other hand, science is quite quick to shift once the claim acquires the evidence to support it. If I were to think of some examples I might settle on, oh, let's say, plate tectonics and pre-Clovis human populations in the Americas.

Astrology, pre-Clovis. Same principle in operation. Science refutes out of hand what they don't want to be true.

No. Science demands new ideas be supported with evidence. Sometimes that which is true is not evidentially supported for some time.

Is that your stance with Vedic astrology? That it is true but the evidence is not yet gathered for it? Perhaps you are right, but I would be far more willing to entertain that idea if you were at least to tell me precisely what Vedic astrology is and how to test it and how to disprove it (falsifiability is perhaps not an actual absolute, but best not to discard it up front).

So far neither you nor anyone else will define exactly what it is that science is supposedly afraid to accept.

“‘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

Yep. There are stodgy old dunderheads in science.* The point you are missing: evidence trumps stodgy old dunderheadedness IF AND ONLY IF (a) there is an actual claim being made and (b) there is actual evidence to support it.

So far, everything astrological -- Vedic or not -- fails both (a) and (b).


*I am taking you at your word on the pre-Clovis stuff. I am not well enough informed on the topic or on the history of its acceptance -- if it is accepted -- to discuss it.

 

[Delvo]

This reminds me of Christians who respond to refutations of Christian apologetics by claiming that the refuter avoided the GOOD/REAL apologetics by the GOOD/REAL theologians.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

I don't know how the studies which require readings produced by actual astrologers choose them, I would guess they go to whatever professional organisations exist and ask for volunteers. But yes, they assume that professional astrologers are following the rules for interpreting charts reasonably competently.

What is your criteria for a "professional astrologer?" If anyone can read a book, run an ad and make the claim, the term really has no meaning. How did the study's authors determine who to study?

I'm trying to find athletes who can hit a 105 mph fastball. Do I canvas high school baseball kids or do I first observationally determine who can hit the ball at 100 mph before I start my study? From what I've read, scientists are canvasing high schools and then claiming no effect when I can SEE the effect.

Many (probably most) of the studies don't require astrologers because they test the claims made for astrology directly by collecting data and analysing it statistically. A good example is the famous 'time twins' study that was done a few years ago;

Analyze exactly what statistically? Astrology claims are unique to an individual so this does not make sense. Are there simple maxims such as "people with the Sun in the first house are bald?" Perhaps, but not that I'm aware, and even if you could show examples of people with the Sun in the first house who have hair, this would not discredit astrology. (One 12th of all people on earth have Sun in the first house. Is there any trait shared by a 12th of all people? Probably not, but that's the simple scientific analysis I've seen).

My understanding is that there are remarkable similarities among twins, even when they have been separate at birth. Further, twins can be born 30 minutes apart.

You clearly have no knowledge of the cognitive biases I am talking about. That's OK, few people do.

The human brain is hard wired to look for patterns and attach significance to them; to pick out the signal and ignore the noise. It is so good at it that it will sometimes think it sees a signal where there is in fact only noise, because false positives are not as potentially dangerous as false negatives. It's better to mistake a shadow for a bear than a bear for a shadow.

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. If I'm told that I will injure my leg next week, and then told two other things that are not true, that is not a 33% accuracy rate since the odds of correctly predicting a leg injury in any one individual within a given week are astronomical.

You could argue that one hit in three is not particularly useful, and I'm open to that argument--however, that one hit helps establish that the astrology claim is valid, if not particularly useful.

In the example you give the astrologer would have made many predictions, one of which was probably something like "someone close to you will die soon".

If that was the prediction, the astrologer would have to wait for me to stop laughing. How useless would be a prediction that somebody close to me will die soon.

>Meanwhile other predictions which didn't come true are forgotten; they are the noise, the one that can be interpreted as correct becomes the signal.

This is why blind tests are done to eliminate this bias. Give 5 subjects 5 readings, one of which is theirs, and ask them to pick out the one that seems the most accurate. If there is any truth to astrology at all then the subject will be able to identify theirs because it will have more predictions that can be interpreted as correct.

To do this, the subjects would have to spend one year tracking the predictions for accuracy. The studies referenced here, that was not done. One problem with this method of testing is that most people have uneventful lives from year to year. They don't get a new job, have a parent die, break a leg. That can make a reading appear generic.

But if all that's going on is the Forer Effect then the one that happens to be the most accurate will be the subject's own no more often than would be expected by chance, i.e. on average only one of the 5 subjects will pick the correct reading. The latter is what actually happens.

You don't know this because no independent group was used or attempt made to establish the competence of the astrologers, the accuracy of the birth time or to track the specific nature of the predictions over time.

Here are a couple of good articles on cognitive biases:

In 1993 I was told my mother would die 15 years later. She died in 2007 within the timeframe predicted. Cognitive biases has nothing to do with it: my mother is either dead or not.





Confirmation bias

Subjective validation[/QUOTE]

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

In that sense, I have seen that astrology does indeed work! I had a roommate in college who was not exactly handsome (to put it politely), but man, he had a way with the ladies! He was an 'expert' in astrology, and would routinely invite attractive sorority girls for a personal astrology reading--which usually consisted of him telling them they were sexually repressed and needed to lighten up in order to fulfill their great destinies. Worked every time, like a charm! I learned a lot from him...

You seem to be implying that women are stupid. Or at least that college women are.

You are also suggesting that college kids are impressionable, which was exactly my argument as to why handing out the exact same astrology chart to a classroom of kids who were fooled into thinking the chart was unique to them was absurd and tells you nothing about astrology.

 

[AdamSK]

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. If I'm told that I will injure my leg next week, and then told two other things that are not true, that is not a 33% accuracy rate since the odds of correctly predicting a leg injury in any one individual within a given week are astronomical.

How often will an astrology prediction include a specific, improbable hit like this? Often enough that a person could, after the fact, choose their own astrology prediction from others?

That is, if we have an astrologer write out predictions for the next week for ten people, how many of those people will be able to identify their own prediction from the other nine one week later?

 

[AdamSK]

In 1993 I was told my mother would die 15 years later. She died in 2007 within the timeframe predicted.

What is the earliest record of this prediction?

 

[Garrette]

--snip--
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. If I'm told that I will injure my leg next week, and then told two other things that are not true, that is not a 33% accuracy rate since the odds of correctly predicting a leg injury in any one individual within a given week are astronomical.

You could argue that one hit in three is not particularly useful, and I'm open to that argument--however, that one hit helps establish that the astrology claim is valid, if not particularly useful. --snip--

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.

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.

--snip--

To do this, the subjects would have to spend one year tracking the predictions for accuracy.

For that kind of study it would. You seem to have a very very narrow understanding of the different types of studies that can be and have been undertaken in general and about the application of the type of study done by Forer.

The studies referenced here, that was not done. One problem with this method of testing is that most people have uneventful lives from year to year. They don't get a new job, have a parent die, break a leg. That can make a reading appear generic.



You don't know this because no independent group was used or attempt made to establish the competence of the astrologers, the accuracy of the birth time or to track the specific nature of the predictions over time.



In 1993 I was told my mother would die 15 years later. She died in 2007 within the timeframe predicted. Cognitive biases has nothing to do with it: my mother is either dead or not.

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.

If I use no astrologer at all and no astrological system at all but instead make a claim that my audience believes, and my claim is that I have written an astrological chart and the audience believes it, then I have not demonstrated a think about astrology itself. To that very limited extent you are correct.

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.

For your vaunted expert astrologers to demonstrate that their system has legitimacy, they must by necessity demonstrate that they have ruled out the issues with the audience.

Confirmation bias

Subjective validation

Nifty. Have you demonstrated that you are not subject to them? Have your expert astrologers demonstrated it does not apply to their audiences/clients?