Michael Shermer vs Jeffrey Armstrong

[luchog]

I've just encoutered this video on Youtube:
Vedic Astrology: Michael Shermer vs Jeffrey Armstrong

In it, Vedic astrologyer Jeffrey Armstrong appears to get quite amazing results in a double-blinded trial, with very specific results well above chance; including accuracy of ostensibly better than 90%. Taken at face value, this would appear to be highly supportive of the validity of at least JA's practice of astrology.

However, something appears to be missing. The video cuts off before Michael Shermer explains this phenomenon, and how such apparently an apparently high success rate could happen. This leads to the obvious conclusion that he can't. Which I know to be untrue, since JA could be a multi-millionaire by this time, and completely re-define science as we know it, if he was as good as he appears to be. I've seen a number of people using it as proof of the validity of astrology, as opposed to the scientific/skeptical view.

Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgible enough to forumlate an sufficient explanation. Does anyone know if the rest of this show, or a transcription, which includes Shermer's cut-off explanation, is available anywhere online? I searched the forum and Google, but couldn't find any info, even on Shermer's website.

 

[dudalb]

Who posted that to YouTube?
People posting video to You Tube have been known to make edits to try to make the video "Prove" their beliefs.

 

[NeilC]

I'd really like to hear Sherma's side of this. Especially as Armstrong is using that clip on his site as proof of the validity of vedic astrology.

Did the experiment actually go as claimed? Was it designed properly? Did Sherma go on to explain the results? Was Sherma diddled?

 

[ravdin]

I would certainly like to see the entire episode. Seeing as Shermer is the presenter, I have to give him a lot of credit if he aired the program only to debunk himself!

 

[Michael C]

It's certainly frustrating not to be able to see the whole of the show. If Armstrong could really get results that accurate, he could win the MDC in a jiffy and, as luchog says, completely re-define science as we know it.

 

[schlitt]

It is highly frustrating the clip has been cut short.

The experiment itself was flawed. The readings simply relied on the barnum effect.
The readings should have been read to the participants without them being informed who they were for, and then the participants should be able to recognise their own readings.

 

[luchog]

It is highly frustrating the clip has been cut short.

The experiment itself was flawed. The readings simply relied on the barnum effect.
The readings should have been read to the participants without them being informed who they were for, and then the participants should be able to recognise their own readings.

I think that was actually done; but cut out of the video that Armstrong uses on his site.

I tried contacting the Skeptic Society about the video, but haven't received any response.

 

[Rodney]

. . . The video cuts off before Michael Shermer explains this phenomenon . . .

According to -- http://www.petemccormack.com/blog/?p=339 --

"Further, Michael Shermer, seemingly caught off guard by Jeffrey’s accuracy, supposedly delivered an ending so irritable and unbalanced that Jeffrey called the show’s producer and pointed out that it was 'out of integrity' for them to not point out that the experiment had gone completely in favour of astrology.

"The producers, to their credit, made sure the ending was changed.

"But even after Jeffrey’s statistical success under the worst possible conditions, Michael’s closing statement rose only to:

"While skeptics will explain the results of our study as due to chance and wishful interpretation, believers will see them as further proof that the stars and planets directly influence our lives.

"One can only imagine the lambasting that would have resulted had the last two 'double blind' readings unfolded with opposite results. The term 'tarred-and-feathered' clucks to mind."

Pete McCormack also says that he thinks the video was made for a show in 1999, but he doesn't say what show.

 

[schlitt]

According to -- http://www.petemccormack.com/blog/?p=339 --

"Further, Michael Shermer, seemingly caught off guard by Jeffrey’s accuracy, supposedly delivered an ending so irritable and unbalanced that Jeffrey called the show’s producer and pointed out that it was 'out of integrity' for them to not point out that the experiment had gone completely in favour of astrology.

"The producers, to their credit, made sure the ending was changed.

"But even after Jeffrey’s statistical success under the worst possible conditions, Michael’s closing statement rose only to:

"While skeptics will explain the results of our study as due to chance and wishful interpretation, believers will see them as further proof that the stars and planets directly influence our lives.

"One can only imagine the lambasting that would have resulted had the last two 'double blind' readings unfolded with opposite results. The term 'tarred-and-feathered' clucks to mind."

Pete McCormack also says that he thinks the video was made for a show in 1999, but he doesn't say what show.

And who is Pete McCormack that his wild speculations should not be treated as anything other than the ravings of a credulous moron?

 

[Rodney]

And who is Pete McCormack that his wild speculations should not be treated as anything other than the ravings of a credulous moron?

I don't know, but I doubt if he is as confused as Shermer is about when he became a skeptic.

 

[Enlighten]

Why not contact Shermer and find out about it?

mshermer@skeptic.com

http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/contact_us.html

Also the video is likely from Exploring the Unknown (1999).

 

[Olowkow]

Well, pluck my eyebrows!

So, astrology can tell people what they already know. Okay... Why would I pay a guy for this? Maybe he can tell me I am tall and thin. My mirror tells me that. Bushy eyebrows? Everyone knows all Aquarians have bushy eyebrows.

What about the predictions? Predictions like, you will get hit by a train at 3:13 on Tuesday, and there is nothing you can do to stop this...after all, Jupiter is on the cusp, and every male person on the earth born at the time and date you were born will be hit by a train at 3:13. Now, that would make the news!

The guy got lucky! Very lucky. Or the guy has sources. End of story. Since Mars is behind Neptune I predict he won't try it with Randi's MDC.

 

[fls]

What was so amazing about that? He had name, age and gender to work with. Even if he didn't bother with any hot reading, you can make a lot of good guesses with just that information.

The process wasn't blind, except for the two that they switched (and even then Shermer wasn't blind to the switch). But why would you expect agreement on readings done for women of different ages?

The people involved seemed to have an incredibly low threshold for amazement. If I could tell from a blurry little youtube video that the first woman plucked her eyebrows, I fail to see how he needed magical information sources to pick it up.

I'd be very surprised to discover that Shermer had any difficulty responding to that demonstration. If Armstrong blew him away, why not show the whole video?

Linda

 

[contingent]

So has anyone found the rest of the video?

 

[Kuko 4000]

I too would like to know more, has Shermer ever written about this? If the quote from another thread is true, they ran out of money and time to make another test. That sounds very unprofessional...especially if they had a multiple test system in mind from the beginning. And if not, the design of the test seems to be very bad. Anyone seen the full version or know which company aired it?

 

[contingent]

Has anyone contacted shermer? Or has anyone seen the second part of this video? I have looked again and again and can't find the rest of the video this is driving me nut!

 

[Kuko 4000]

It's not driving me nut, but I'd really like to see the rest of the video to make a more informed opinion. Right now it all seems very unprofessional from Shermer. This clip has been the talk of many woo-people in my country.

I think I'll write Shermer a mail later today about this.

 

[Kuko 4000]

I'm impressed, Shermer replied very fast, about an hour after my mail:

The short story is this: we ran out of time at the end of the filming day to conduct any more experiments with Armstrong. I protested that it was going to make it look like he was successful, but to no avail as I did not have final authority over what was produced for the show, Exploring the Unknown, and so I just hoped that in the editing process it would be cut in a way that dealt with that problem, but it wasn't and I couldn't do anything about it, so it aired and no one noticed back then (in 2000), but someone posted the clip you reference and now we're dealing with the fallout from it. It is an unfortunate reality of the series that I didn't have enough control over the production and filming process.

You can post this explanation if you like.

Michael

I replied and asked if he would share his personal conclusions and thoughts about the results and the methodology of the experiment. I hope he will answer to that as well

 

[Kuko 4000]

Again a fast reply:

My memory on what we were trying to do that day of filming is a little vague, but if I recall correctly there was to be another stage of the experiment where Armstrong had to match his astrological readings with the profiles of a group of new subjects, and then have them do the same, picking out their reading from a batch he produced, and then compare them. But we ran out of time. Here's how it works in the film/television industry: camera crews are unionized and have strict rules about working only so many hours in a day, after which they get paid double time and even triple time, need a certain number of breaks in the day, etc. Our budget for that show required that we were done by 5pm, and we simply ran out of time and the producer called the shoot over, and there was nothing I could do about it. Very frustrating.

You can post this as well. In fact, maybe you can post it on the YouTube video of it, and anywhere else you find it playing.

Michael

 

[contingent]

I see, dang that sucks. It seems all these nutties are now taking advantage of this.