Michael Shermer vs Jeffrey Armstrong

[skeen]

Astrology is one of those things where, even if it worked, it would be entirely useless. At least with psychic ability, it would have immediate and obvious uses, and would shake the world to its core.

I mean, if psychic ability worked, you would really know about it. Not so much with astrology.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

"As of 2003, over 1.5 million US citizens practice martial arts." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_arts

And does "practice martial arts" cover "once took a tae kwan do class"?

I think it doesn't. I think the net being cast is much wider than people currently practicing any form of martial arts.

I'm going through the women I know about the same age, and I'm upwards of 90% of them have at one time or another practiced something that might be construed as a martial art.

(My ex wife, in fact, is really into Aikido. She's got some fairly high ranking, and goes all over the country for workshops and such. However, she is a botanist and would not fairly be described as a "martial artist". My current girlfriend takes one of those kick-boxing aerobics classes at the Y--I think that's called tae-bo. Friends, relatives---yep the vast majority have at one time or another taken a class in one kind or another of a martial art. FWIW, some of the stuff I'm exposed to as a juggler--like at juggling conventions--has origins in martial arts: yo-yo, poi, staff manipulation, bolos, for examples. I wasn't counting any of these, but someone really hunting to shoehorn a "hit" may very well include them.)

ETA: Ooops--I totally forgot to include the number of people I know who are into fencing. I've actually got two different circles of friends into two different types of fencing. (One the European kind, and the other some strange Asian kind.) And I know some people professionally who do theatrical martial arts (not true martial arts, but staged sword play and fight sequences)--I'd forgotten about them.

 

[tyr_13]

You did not just refer to Kendo as 'some strange Asian kind' did you?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

My son sometimes practices some of his judo moves on me. Do I count too?

 

[GeeMack]

In addition to some of the suggestions already made here about how to modify this project to apply a better scientific approach, I think an interesting angle would be for several astrologers to all draw up their readings for a handful of the same people then see how well their readings match. To demonstrate that there is any scientific validity to astrology, there has to be a method, a system of some sort that can be applied independently by separate operators and achieve the same results from each.

 

[Rodney]

And does "practice martial arts" cover "once took a tae kwan do class"?

I think it doesn't. I think the net being cast is much wider than people currently practicing any form of martial arts.

I already discussed this in post #35 on this thread. In any event, the big thing that Armstrong did was nailing the analyses of the two women whose evaluations Shermer switched. And, as a skeptic, don't you really know deep down why they were switched? If not, I'll tell you: So Shermer could triumphantly proclaim that the hit rates for the two switched readings were in the same ballpark as for the other evaluations, proving that people will generally agree with their evaluations. Except that, since it didn't work out that way, Shermer is now reduced to lamely contending that "we simply ran out of time."

 

[skeen]

I already discussed this in post #35 on this thread. In any event, the big thing that Armstrong did was nailing the analyses of the two women whose evaluations Shermer switched. And, as a skeptic, don't you really know deep down why they were switched? If not, I'll tell you: So Shermer could triumphantly proclaim that the hit rates for the two switched readings were in the same ballpark as for the other evaluations, proving that people will generally agree with their evaluations. Except that, since it didn't work out that way, Shermer is now reduced to lamely contending that "we simply ran out of time."

It was a poor test. I'm not sure why it was done so poorly, but everyone knows that an argument from authority is invalid, and while I think Michael Shermer is great, this test was not.

The switched readings were between two women of considerable age difference. As I said, it is unlikely that the younger woman would have been married more than once -- the only thing this astrologer proved, is that it is possible to come up with general statements about people based on their gender and age. Anyone can do this.

A much fairer test, would be to pick people within the same age bracket, and have the readings read out, and for those people to mark down which one they thought they were. This would (and has before, I've seen Randi do it) prove that all said astrologer is doing is making general statements that can apply to a lot of people, regardless of birth date.

Are you saying this would not have been the case? Are you saying this test is sufficient proof for you that astrology is real?

 

[Rodney]

Are you saying this would not have been the case? Are you saying this test is sufficient proof for you that astrology is real?

No, I'm merely saying that it's pretty obvious what happened here: The trap that Shermer set backfired.

 

[Limbo]

Inconceivable!

 

[Cavemonster]

Inconceivable!

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You did not just refer to Kendo as 'some strange Asian kind' did you?

No--it wasn't Kendo. Or at least they didn't call it that. It looked a lot like some of the stuff my ex did (not the Aikido), but she called it something else again.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I already discussed this in post #35 on this thread.

What are you talking about?

I just quoted your post #35 (in my post number #42 which you just quoted) --in particular the quote from the Wiki article.

I pointed out that the little factoid you provided talks about how many people are currently practicing martial arts classes. If you include people who "once took a class", the number would be substantially higher.

You have not responded to this point yet. You're trying to say that it's still a valid "hit" (as if few people would be able to say what this woman said) when it is clearly a gross example of shoehorning.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And, as a skeptic, don't you really know deep down why they were switched? If not, I'll tell you: So Shermer could triumphantly proclaim that the hit rates for the two switched readings were in the same ballpark as for the other evaluations, proving that people will generally agree with their evaluations. Except that, since it didn't work out that way, Shermer is now reduced to lamely contending that "we simply ran out of time."

Frankly, I don't know or care much why Shermer did what he did. I'm just discussing what we have available in the video.

I don't see any objective validating of these hits. As I said, for that reason, the percentages we're given are merely a subjective measure of how accurate the subjects think their readings are. As such, the little demo is almost exactly a counterpart to the Forer experiments. I think it makes most sense to compare the percentage given in the video to the values Forer has obtain.

They're very similar, though I believe Armstrong's were rated as less accurate.

 

[Femke]

(For that matter, how do you know that what the woman described as a "tae kwan do" class wasn't in fact actually titled "Self Defense for Women"?)

I signed on to a course titled Self Defense for Women, which turned out to be indistinguishable from jiu jitsu (we even got a yellow belt, the lowest rank). Because of a (then recent) wave of attacks on female students being out at night, they thought they would get more clients if they advertised it as especially for women.

 

[fls]

Except that Armstrong's best results came with respect to the two women whom Shermer gave the wrong analyses.

But not under blind conditions (I don't remember the value the women gave for their readings after they were told which one was the correct reading, but I'll go along with your claim that the value was high) so the result isn't unexpected.

Linda

 

[fls]

Armstrong specifically said a "dancer or martial artist" so I don't think merely taking a Self Defence for Women course would count. Now, admittedly, the woman in question is neither a dancer nor a martial artist, but on the other hand, she says that she took a Taekwondo course and likes to dance, so both are at least generally covered. And I seriously doubt if most women her age have taken a martial arts class, Linda and you to the contrary notwithstanding. According to Wikipedia:

"As of 2003, over 1.5 million US citizens practice martial arts." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_arts

Not exactly a large portion of the 2003 U.S. population of about 300 million, although I would guess perhaps more like 3 million would have taken a martial arts class at some point. However, I would also guess that more men than women have taken martial arts classes. Overall, I would estimate that perhaps 1-2% of that woman's age group in the U.S. have taken a martial arts class.

I simply think your estimates reflect your own wishful thinking. This question actually came up at a meeting I was attending with women mostly in their 40's and 50's, and 2/3 of the women had practiced or taken some sort of martial arts class at some point. Both of my daughters are taking Karate. I'm not going to say that I know what proportion of women would consider that guess as a 'hit', but it should be clear to you that assuming the number to be low will likely be wrong.

Also, most every woman I know likes to dance. So again, assuming that most women don't like to dance would seem to be foolish.

Linda

 

[fls]

I already discussed this in post #35 on this thread. In any event, the big thing that Armstrong did was nailing the analyses of the two women whose evaluations Shermer switched. And, as a skeptic, don't you really know deep down why they were switched? If not, I'll tell you: So Shermer could triumphantly proclaim that the hit rates for the two switched readings were in the same ballpark as for the other evaluations, proving that people will generally agree with their evaluations. Except that, since it didn't work out that way, Shermer is now reduced to lamely contending that "we simply ran out of time."

The problem with that supposition is that you have to assume that Shermer is ignorant of basic psychology and research methodology in order for him to be incapable of figuring out how what the next step in the process would be - a supposition that looks pretty foolish in light of his graduate degree in experimental psychology. It is certainly possible that if the switched readings had achieved the same hit rates as the rest that Shermer wouldn't have seen a need for additional study, in that it would have sufficiently demonstrated the results of blinding. But since the readings contained enough information specific to age that made them distinguishable, that didn't work. He has the know-how to realize that it would be foolish to attribute the differences to astrological clues, when age and gender clues were present, and so he would realize that the next step would be to remove those clues. A reason must be found to explain why he wouldn't have done the obvious. His explanation is that he wasn't allowed to do so, which makes sense. What other explanation can you provide that makes sense?

Linda

 

[fls]

Frankly, I don't know or care much why Shermer did what he did. I'm just discussing what we have available in the video.

I don't see any objective validating of these hits. As I said, for that reason, the percentages we're given are merely a subjective measure of how accurate the subjects think their readings are. As such, the little demo is almost exactly a counterpart to the Forer experiments. I think it makes most sense to compare the percentage given in the video to the values Forer has obtain.

They're very similar, though I believe Armstrong's were rated as less accurate.

That really is the important point. Regardless of Shermer's motives, the experiment is simply inadequate to conclude that magic is afoot.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

The problem with that supposition is that you have to assume that Shermer is ignorant of basic psychology and research methodology in order for him to be incapable of figuring out how what the next step in the process would be - a supposition that looks pretty foolish in light of his graduate degree in experimental psychology. It is certainly possible that if the switched readings had achieved the same hit rates as the rest that Shermer wouldn't have seen a need for additional study, in that it would have sufficiently demonstrated the results of blinding. But since the readings contained enough information specific to age that made them distinguishable, that didn't work. He has the know-how to realize that it would be foolish to attribute the differences to astrological clues, when age and gender clues were present, and so he would realize that the next step would be to remove those clues. A reason must be found to explain why he wouldn't have done the obvious. His explanation is that he wasn't allowed to do so, which makes sense. What other explanation can you provide that makes sense?

Linda

Let me relate an anecdote that will explain what was going on here: In my first psychology class in college, the instructor informed us that he had undertaken personality analyses of the class, and wanted some feedback on how accurate his analyses were. So he called out one of the student's names and said something like: "You are a strong, but sensitive person. You enjoy popular music, but have some unusual interests. Blah, blah, blah . . . Now, how did I do." Student: "That was very accurate." The instructor then did a few more "analyses" and received about the same feedback. He then let us in on his little secret: He actually had not undertaken personality analyses of the class, but had simply made a number of general statements about students selected at random.

I'm 90% sure that's what Shermer was going for. He thought that, despite the age difference of the two women, they each would nonetheless provide generally positive feedback to Armstrong. Shermer then intended to use that feedback to hammer home the point that, even when Armstrong's analyses were off-base, the women's responses were generally positive.

So, while this experiment hardly established the validity of Vedic Astrology, it did make Shermer look foolish -- which, in my opinion, but not yours, is a good thing.

 

[fls]

Let me relate an anecdote that will explain what was going on here: In my first psychology class in college, the instructor informed us that he had undertaken personality analyses of the class, and wanted some feedback on how accurate his analyses were. So he called out one of the student's names and said something like: "You are a strong, but sensitive person. You enjoy popular music, but have some unusual interests. Blah, blah, blah . . . Now, how did I do." Student: "That was very accurate." The instructor then did a few more "analyses" and received about the same feedback. He then let us in on his little secret: He actually had not undertaken personality analyses of the class, but had simply made a number of general statements about students selected at random.

I'm 90% sure that's what Shermer was going for. He thought that, despite the age difference of the two women, they each would nonetheless provide generally positive feedback to Armstrong. Shermer then intended to use that feedback to hammer home the point that, even when Armstrong's analyses were off-base, the women's responses were generally positive.

That would be similar to the Forer experiment that Joe the Juggler has mentioned, except that this experiment varied both the readings and the individuals. It makes this particular result uninterpretable, whereas splitting it up into two experiments would have made the results clearer. It may be that Shermer was trying to kill two birds with one stone, which supports his statement that his resources were limited.

So, while this experiment hardly established the validity of Vedic Astrology, it did make Shermer look foolish -- which, in my opinion, but not yours, is a good thing.

Yeah, it's simply unimportant to me.

Linda