First, we would need to know if you would accept evidence short of that preposterous test you proposed earlier in this thread. It does no good to present tests that you are just going to dismiss out of hand.
I won’t make you pick and choose from the hundreds at your fingertips, just the top ten will do nicely. I suppose it would be too much to ask that somebody involved with the study actually knows something about astrology? Or is sharing your contempt sufficient proof of expertise?
As WhyNot already said, there is a computer program developed to do this kind of interpretation. Thing is, “the rules” aren’t all set in stone to begin with. What house system do you use, what “orb of influence” do you allow? Different interpreters would give different weight to relationships between various planets. Does your 12th House stellium outrank your Grand Air Trine or vice versa? Plus, as I mentioned, there are different expressions of any trait - do you use it for good or (mwahaha!) evil, is it confined to particular situations that trigger it, and so forth.
Kind of like in medicine, where a certain test result has a definite number, but your doctor will take into account your other health issues and medications to determine just what that number means to you.
Answer the question, please. Will you accept evidence that falls short of the standard you yourself set forth earlier in this thread? From people that certainly know about astrology, but don’t believe in it?
Hey, I asked you first. Who says you get to make the rules? You said “all those studies”, not me, I didn’t make any such claim.
The only studies I recall offhand were some years back these French guys (Gauqelien?) did one that purported to prove the validity of planetary aspects. Problem was, it was rubbish. Gee, thanks, guys, next time, go help somebody else.
This link gives a summary of numerous studies that don’t support astrology - it gives citations of where the studies were published and summarizes the findings, but doesn’t link directly to the studies in question. Some of the studies only used the sun sign, but others used several different signs.
Examples:
Gee, I dunno. Beyond Weird.com?
Does it matter what website the articles are cited on, if they actually exist?
I’m not an expert in this area or anything, I was just reading the thread and was curious, and that was the first website I found that gave sources for their cites.
For instance, the last article I quoted was in Skeptical Inquirer - Dean, G.; Does Astrology Need to be True? Part 1: A Look at the Real Thing; Skeptical Inquirer, 11, 166 (1987).
Checking the Skeptical Inquirer’s website index of past articles confirms that this article was published (http://csicop.org/si/index/a.html) - scroll down to articles under the subject of “Astrology”.
The second-last article I quoted was in *Nature[/i[ - Shawn Carlson; A Double-blind Test of Astrology; Nature, 318, 419 (1985)
Nature’s website confirms that this article was published (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v318/n6045/pdf/318419a0.pdf)
Well, I suppose. Haven’t heard of any of this but the Gauqelin studies, which I recall as being favorable to astrology, but flawed to the point of uselessness. I suppose anybody who wants to track them down is surely free to do so.
And your opinion of what’s been given you so far is…?
Exactly the same question I was going to ask elucidator.
After all, when asked about research that disproves astrology, he just said to “bring 'em”. He also said “I won’t make you pick and choose from the hundreds at your fingertips, just the top ten will do nicely. I suppose it would be too much to ask that somebody involved with the study actually knows something about astrology? Or is sharing your contempt sufficient proof of expertise?”
Several of the studies I cited did involve actual astrologists both in designing the study and in carrying it out. Still had negative results though.
Oh, no, I don’t think so. I’ll reserve judgement until you bring all of those studies which you have right at your fingertips. Unless, by an extraordinary coincidence, these are they?
Nice dodging. Well, you didn’t direct a request for studies at me, I was just reading the thread and responded.
And you specifically said that “just the top ten will do nicely.” I don’t know if these are the top ten (unlikely), but they are ten. Would you like to start with responding to those and maybe someone else will provide more later.
The only person who has used the phrase “right at your fingertips” is you. Now you are saying that you won’t comment on any of it until all of it is presented to you?
I’m kinda hinting that I think you were bluffing. Probably unconciously, you naturally assumed there must be tons of studies proving that you’re right, and didn’t bother to check that thought. Can’t prove it, of course. But if you had gone all in, I would have called.
We have already a given that all “sun sign” stuff is right out, yes? You don’t get to make all the rules, right? I mean, thats fair, isn’t it?
OK, first impressions…
The suicide study. Interesting, I’d like to look at that myself, just to look. But I don’t think I’d be looking for suicide in a chart, I’ve seen nothing whatever that would lead me to believe there is an astrological significator for type of death. Now, maybe depression. Malign aspects between Mercury and Saturn, or Venus and Saturn. (Depressed mentality and depressed emotive capacity, respectively…)
And this part:
A hundred thousand? Where did this figure come from? Did they consult with astrologers about significators for suicide, and were given a hundred thousand of them? Or did they just load them up with whatever? Garbage in, proof out?
And the Journal of Geo Cosmic Research? Well, tell you what, you Google it, if I tell you you’ll probably think I’m making shit up.
All for now, stuff to do.
This 1996 Dutch test was designed by astrologers. Half of them predicted they would have complete success-they actually did worse than chance.
I’m curious. Why is the side that is making the extraordinary claim also the side demanding the extraordinary evidence? elucidator has already admitted to having no evidence supporting his belief, therefore any evidence to the contrary is more than enough as far as this is concerned.
Hey, you’re distracting me! I’m still back slogging through the other stack. But now that you mention it…Seems to be a lot of references here to magazines devoted to enthusiastic skeptics, porno for Randi wannabes. Is that entirely kosher, in your estimation? So if I bring some articles in magazines for astrology enthusiasts, you will treat them with equal gravity? And can I insist that you plow through them? I mean, fairs fair, right?
Sure! Said so all along, not here to convince anyone. My testimony is 100% anecdotal, never said otherwise. The OP asked for honest answers from someone willing to admit such a dark pathology, and I obliged. Would it help if I type it more slowly? I’m not here to convince you. Not that I don’t care what you think, but that its such an extravagant investment of energy.
Here’s where I walked, here’s what I saw. Take it for what you will, or don’t. All I can say for myself is I’ve got a lot of faults, a long list, but stupid ain’t on it.