You do realize that each of the 50 charts will “match” the subject, don’t you? Which will only confirm the OP’s convictions?
Sorry, I don’t have the material, and it was Analog, not, say, The New York Times, so I don’t offhand know where I could find it.
Instead of the general wishy-washy Forer-type predictions, a good way to convince the skeptics of the predictive value of astrology would be to have verifiable predictions made remotly (that is, no visual or oral interaction) by a variety of astrologers and compare them with random-chance predictions. Things like employment choosen, marriage status, sexual orientation, number of children, hobbys - if all those things are influenced by the stars, then they should be predictable, yes?
And yes, I know that the studies that correlated birth signs and employment found none signifanct groupings according to the stars, e.g. people born under Mars weren’t soldiers to a higher percentage than people born under other planets.
While you certainly are on the right track, there’s a world of ambiguity in the phrase “compare them”. How will you do that to avoid biases screwing up the results?
One way is to prepare an objective list of those items, say the marriage status, sexual orientation, children, etc. for each of 10 randomly chosen subjects, then have someone match those attributes to a list of names using astrology. All levels of this process should be blinded, of course, and the lists kept separate until the test.
Even here, if the birth date is given, the marriage status and number of children can be guessed without consulting the stars, so that’s not a good item to use.
If astrology truly works, you should expect a high degree of matching accuracy (why not perfect?). If it doesn’t, the expected number of matches is about 1 of 10.
Decide in advance what constitutes a success or failure, then judge accordingly. If you don’t, there will be waffles later, and not the kind with butter and syrup.
But that’s far too easy, to have the attributes already known and just do match-up. I would instead give 20 astrologers only the birth date and a list of fixed prescriptions. E.g for marriage status, it’s “single” (which excludes all types of relationships) or married (which includes marriage by law and through church.
For occupation, again a list of defined jobs, so soldier includes official military as well as mercenary, but not private guard on Saturday nights or playing in the Civil War Re-enactment society.
Sexual orientation would be hetero, homo, bi, transgendenderd.
The astrologists must use the defined terms - as have the tested people before when describing themselves - but they don’t know if any of the 20 people are homo or bi, or all are hetero.
Then, I would give both lists - definitions and birth dates - to a bunch of random people and have them guess - as you said, people who are fifty years old today will be more likely hetero than transgendered, more likely to work in some areas but not in others etc.
That’S the random guess which the astrologers have to beat.
What I’m really waiting for is a true prediction of the numbers of next weeks lotto, that would convince me!
That’s a horrible principle. If I told you I could fly by flapping my arms, would you refrain from doubting me until you could meet me in person for a demo? If so, then as another old saying goes, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you . . .
Here’s the thing. Stars and planets are made of atoms. People are also made of atoms. We know what forces one collection of atoms can exert on another collection of atoms, and how quickly those effects propagate, and how the strength of those effects falls off with distance . . . and none of it is consistent with astrology. If you’ve got one collection of ideas (physics) that’s passed extensive, scientifically rigorous testing, and you’ve got another collection of ideas (astrology) that hasn’t, and the two are in direct conflict, then there’s only one reasonable choice about which to believe.
You want me to take astrology seriously? Step 1: Give me some explanation of how it might work that doesn’t amount to “It’s magic.” Step 2: Let’s see some evidence that actually passes basic standards of scientific rigor. What you’re describing in the OP isn’t it.
Actually, I was thinking that they would contradict each other and/or the OP would realize the vagueness in them but but you’re right, they could interpret them all as being accurate.:rolleyes:
That’s entirely backwards. The explanation is secondary. First, an astrologer needs to demonstrate rigorously that it works, then we’ll worry about the explanations. All those so-called “explanations” we see adherents waving about are nothing but that: hand-waving, distracting from the real issue that it doesn’t work. You think you can prove it? Pass the James Randi challenge. Then I’ll listen carefully to whatever explanations might be given.
*** Ponder
Well, I would argue that if no one can even think of a general explanation of how it might be consistent with physical principles, then the standard of evidence required to convince us should be higher. (Perhaps I should have said “explain how it could be consistent with known science”, not “explain how it works” – the specific mechanism isn’t really the point here.)
If you tell me you ate Cheerios this morning, I’d believe you based on your word alone, since I have no real reason to think you couldn’t have or that you’re lying. But if you tell me you flew to the moon and back this morning, I would require a great deal of supporting evidence to be convinced, since I have plenty of reason to think this is impossible.
Also, experiments cost money, and it’s probably not even worth funding research if we have sufficient reason to doubt the effect we’re looking for could possibly exist. I don’t need to test every self-proclaimed psychic in the world to know that their supposed supernatural powers don’t exist.
I guess I see it as a bit of a cycle: consider our reasons for skepticism, consider the evidence, re-examine our skepticism if the evidence warrants it, gather more evidence as needed, etc.
Some people (not directed at you, Ponderoid) seem to think that for a scientist to be “unbiased” they should consider every claim to have a 50% chance of being true until they’ve done an experiment to test that specific claim. But that’s wrong, because that would mean forgetting all the science they already know, from experiments other people have already done. I don’t need to test Astrologer X’s specific claim when I know right off the bat that it violates well-tested physics.
At any rate, astrology both fails empirical testing and fails to be consistent with established science – so in this case the order doesn’t much matter.
Just to add one point: People will often reply to comments like my previous post with “But sometimes science is wrong!” Then someone brings up Einstein’s general relativity displacing the previously accepted Newtonian theory of gravity.
Here’s the key point: Einstein’s theory is consistent with Newtonian gravity in the limiting cases where Newtonian gravity had been successfully tested. So Einstein’s theory doesn’t contradict the observations that had caused everyone to believe Newton. It does however account for certain cases where Newtonian gravity was in disagreement with empirical observation.
Basically, if you have a new theory that contradicts a well-tested theory, either your theory needs to predict the same results for those experiments that were seen as confirming the old theory, or you need to have some explanation of why those experiments were flawed and gave erroneous results. Otherwise, don’t expect people to put much effort into testing a theory that has already been effectively ruled out.
Einstein (and other innovators in science) didn’t just show up and declare “Science is wrong!”, and if he had he would have rightly been ignored by the scientific community.
And Einstein didn’t make a wild claim out of the blue. First, his theory explained some anomolies that heretofore were not explainable. Next, he supported it with theoretical evidence, at least, and as tests were devised that could have negated his theory, the results instead confirmed it to an increasing degree. The evidence became stronger, one of the differences between science and pseudoscience, where, as the controls are tightened, the phenomena goes away.
Not exactly what you’re looking for, but a guy named Rob Nanninga in the Netherlands conducted the “Astrotest” around 1995 (http://www.skepsis.nl/astrot.html). Seven people whose birth date, time, and place were known filled out questionnaires with questions designed by astrologers, such as marital status, career, hobbies, etc. 44 trained astrologers matched the birthdates to the questionnaire results. Predictably (ha), the astrologers failed it: the mean number of correct matches was the same as random chance; no astrologer got more than 3 correct. And it’s not as if they weren’t trying–there was a $2500 prize for the astrologer who could get all of them right.
I really like Nanninga’s conclusion, though, which is that if people want to believe in astrology they can. I’m an astronomer, but I have no objection to astrology as a spiritual practice–you know, schedule the date for your house closing for next Thursday instead of Friday, when Saturn is in Aquarius. It’s no weirder than throwing salt over your shoulder. Just don’t tell me there’s a physical reason for this, or that astrology has proven predictive power.
There have been many other tests of astrology, too–for a summary of prizes that have been offered to astrologers who can make accurate predictions, see http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/d-comp1.htm.
Exactly. Astrology is no different from any other superstition. I really don’t mind people who want to arrange their lives due to the positions of the planets or the positions of the furniture or their biorhythms or whatever, just so they don’t try to call it science and sell the concept to other people.
Believing in astrology is (mostly) harmless.
Getting paid to do other people’s charts is fraud.
Better yet,
Have 20 of your closest friends get together on New Year’s Eve 2009. Get a professional astrologer to do birth horoscopes for each of them for the coming year. Do not show or distribute the results. Each person keeps a diary/journal of their year with events they consider important, decisions they’ve made, and the outcomes of these decisions.
At the end of the year everyone gets together and all 20 of the results/predictions are posted for everyone to see sans the persons name.
How many people when comparing their journals to the posted horoscopes will be able to pick out their matching chart? I’d predict 1 to 2 of them just by sheer odds.
Astrology is an extremely complicated method of character analysis. Then add projections of year-for-a-day and charts for a year in question and I came to the conclusion that there is so much in it that it’s possible to find just about anything you want in a chart. Even then you don’t know which ‘direction’ it works in. For instance, Martin Luther King’s chart is full of ruthless violence. Well his life was and he had to be a pretty ruthless determined man to face it, but the chart doesn’t show that the violence was aimed at him and not coming from him
Just how does the chart show that?
It’s called confirmation bias. Throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and let the audience pick what fits. Imagine that, the stuff they pick matches them.
I have no doubt, but I am truly curious as to what astrological factors contribute to that interpretation. Mars may be the God of War, but if my Mars is rising, does that mean I will be attacked or be the attacker? What distinguishes such fine detail?
That’s the beauty of astrology: it means anything you want it to mean! Just wait until there’s some violence from, to, near, or about you, and bam – confirmation!
I’m highly skeptical of astrology, as befits my suspicious Scorpio nature.
And it’s Scorpius, damn it! Scorpius!!