Proving Astrology: An Statistical Challenge

[TruthSeeker]

When a comet goes by, the ancients said that the end was near. Maybe the end wasn't quite near. But often, comets would bring sickness.They would also rely on the stars to navigate and to grow crops.

So, I was thinking..... what if Astrology works? Forget about how it works, like... how the stars can actually influence our lives. Concentrate on whether it actually works or not. Can we prove it or disprove it using statistics?

Of course we cannot actually prove or disprove how stars influence us. That would be a hard task that would likely involve string theory and quantum physics. However, if we analize many astrological maps and see how accurate they are in a given sample, we might be able to come up with a proof for astrology (or disproof).

First of all, it is important to know all the elements of astrology. To begin with, the primary function of astrology is to help us to discover ourselves. It is not to foresee the future as much as it is a tool of self-awareness, of rediscovering our personality.

Second, it is important to notice that astrology and horoscope are two completely different things. Horoscopes analize only the position of the sun. It doesn't even take into account the year or birth. In real astrology, however, many things are analized. Astrologers use not only the day and month of birth but also the year, the exact hour down to seconds (if there is such information) and the exact location, with latitude and longitude. Clearly, there are MANY different maps that can be formed through this information. They also not only analize the position of the sun, but also the position of all planets, the moon, some comets and even the position of the north and south poles. Also, they analize their position relative to each other.

Maybe we should calculate how many maps can be created through all this information? A fast estimation gives me at least 56,764,800 different maps, without taking into account the exact positions, the exact hour and the exact latitude and longitude. I can't really calculate this...

Oh! And astrologers also compare maps, which makes the number much bigger.

Anyways.... I hope someone can actually recognize the challenge and maybe help in finding that out....

 

[marv]

The only evidence that I find in astrology that seems to bear out is that if you're conceived so that you are born during the cold winter months, especially up through mid-December or so, you benefit psychologically from more nurturing and closeness of your parents. Other than that, it's crap, and has nothing to do with ths Sun, Moon or stars.

But it provides a lot of fun for little old ladies.

 

[(Q)]

So, I was thinking..... what if Astrology works? Forget about how it works, like... how the stars can actually influence our lives. Concentrate on whether it actually works or not. Can we prove it or disprove it using statistics?

So, forget about how it works and concentrate on whether or not it works?

No wonder you can't get a girlfriend.

 

[TruthSeeker]

So, forget about how it works and concentrate on whether or not it works?

Obviously.
If we do an statistical study and we find with 99% of accuracy that astrology does work for 200,000 people, shouldn't you believe it works?

No wonder you can't get a girlfriend.

1) I have a "girlfriend".
2) That was a non-sequitur....



Wow! You try to prove something statistically and evryone rejects the hypothesis without even looking at the data...! Geeeezzz... how ignorant people can be...!!

 

[Pete]

I recall reading about an experiment that went something like this:

10 people were selected in some way (the subjects).
Enough information about the subjects was provided to a number of astrologers (or was it only one??) to allow them to produce a complete astrological profile.
The astrologers then interviewed the subjects (within some constraints?? No questions about birthdays, I guess?) to assess their actual profile.
The astrologers then attempted to determine which astrological profile belonged to which subject.

 

[slotty]

So let me get this, a star that is billions of light years away has the abilty to influence me tomorrow? It knew millions of years ago, that i would be born, and could influence all the different aspects of my life? How?

 

[TruthSeeker]

I recall reading about an experiment that went something like this:

10 people were selected in some way (the subjects).
Enough information about the subjects was provided to a number of astrologers (or was it only one??) to allow them to produce a complete astrological profile.
The astrologers then interviewed the subjects (within some constraints?? No questions about birthdays, I guess?) to assess their actual profile.
The astrologers then attempted to determine which astrological profile belonged to which subject.

Not so bad. But a sample of 10 people is not enough.
Besides, I was thinking about something like... astrologers making maps for many people, and than asking the people whether the astrologers can accurately predict their personalities.

But anyways...

So let me get this, a star that is billions of light years away has the abilty to influence me tomorrow? It knew millions of years ago, that i would be born, and could influence all the different aspects of my life? How?

It might very well be possible possible thanks to quantum entanglement...

 

[Pete]

Not so bad. But a sample of 10 people is not enough.

Depends on what confidence level you want, I guess?

Besides, I was thinking about something like... astrologers making maps for many people, and than asking the people whether the astrologers can accurately predict their personalities.

That could work, as long as you had appropriate controls.

Perhaps something like this?
1) Select your subjects (let's say 50)
2) Draw up astrological profiles for each
3) Present each subject with their own profile plus 4(?) randomly chosen others
4) Ask each subject to rank the profiles according to how well they fit

I'm not an expert on statistical techniques, so I'm not sure exactly how the analysis would work...

 

[TruthSeeker]

Depends on what confidence level you want, I guess?

Yes. Well, I gues it should be at least 95% of confidence... I gotta review my statitic notes....

That could work, as long as you had appropriate controls.

Perhaps something like this?
1) Select your subjects (let's say 50)
2) Draw up astrological profiles for each
3) Present each subject with their own profile plus 4(?) randomly chosen others
4) Ask each subject to rank the profiles according to how well they fit

I'm not an expert on statistical techniques, so I'm not sure exactly how the analysis would work...

I think that would work fine, actually...
only the election of subjects that should be careful. We want it to be as random as possible.

 

[Ophiolite]

There are standard psychology tests that define aspects of character. These can be matched to the broad personality types said to be associated with each star sign. The data are sitting there in filing cabinets around the country - complete with birthdates. You could get very high volume. Forget Jupiter rising in Taurus - the first pass should concentrate on this broad brush approach.
And shame on those of you who are decrying this because you can't see how or why it would work. Did it never occur to you that correllation does not require causation?

 

[TruthSeeker]

What are you suggesting, Ophiolite? Can we have access to such information?

And shame on those of you who are decrying this because you can't see how or why it would work. Did it never occur to you that correllation does not require causation?

Yeah, obviously. But I guess they already left with their biased closed-mindness....

 

[Roman]

So, I was thinking..... what if Astrology works? Forget about how it works, like... how the stars can actually influence our lives. Concentrate on whether it actually works or not. Can we prove it or disprove it using statistics?

Statistics can prove nothing. Besides, correlation does not mean causation.

 

[Athelwulf]

Granted I don't really know how it works, I feel astrology is valid. It's like what my dad has told me once . . . If there's any truth to it, it will show.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Statistics can prove nothing.

Than all that we know about science is completely useless.....

Besides, correlation does not mean causation.

Of course, and I did point that out....
Well, it doesn't necessarily imply causation, but it points out a possibility for a causation. It is an inductive argument.

If it works, it works

 

[SkinWalker]

What I wonder is how can the Moon or stars affect a person born in an enclosed room where their light can't reach?

 

[TruthSeeker]

What I wonder is how can the Moon or stars affect a person born in an enclosed room where their light can't reach?

1. Light has many wavelenghts, not just the visible one. They can go trough walls.
2. It is not necessarily the light that affects them

 

[SkinWalker]

Which wavelengths go through the walls of a hospital?

What else could possibly affect them?

 

[TruthSeeker]

Which wavelengths go through the walls of a hospital?

Most of them. Ever used a radio?

What else could possibly affect them?

Gravity, quantum entanglement.... most likely a combination of both...

 

[SkinWalker]

Most of them. Ever used a radio?

I would think that the electromagnetic spectrum of a television transmitter on another continent would have more effect than a star millions/billions of light years away.

Gravity, quantum entanglement.... most likely a combination of both...

Wouldn't the gravity of the obstetrician be more significant? The star is more massive, but the obstetrician is FAR more close.

How do the planets figure into it?

 

[Revlos]

"There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics."

In areas where adequate empirical data exists, such statistics and figures can only provide a qualified possibility, not absolute certainty. Leaps of faith are required to accept any evidence as truth. A person’s subjective evidence is different, but, in no way less valid than a so-called scientific result.

Astrology has always existed, and is probably as old as humanity itself in contrast to Psychology which is quite modern.

The situation is similar in History, Archaeology - how can these be understood without understanding the relation of every phenomenon to everything else, and above all as a manifestation of human psychology, and spiritual evolution? Spengler is the historian who came nearest to doing this, and exemplifying the right method. In early and pre-history Velikovsky, a follower of Freud, uncovered a whole range of evidence and facts that completely contradict established theory, and even intruded on the physical sciences and astronomy. He became the victim of what amounted to an organised persecution and coverup by established science. Many of his conclusions and predictions in the latter domain were later proved correct by space-probes, while the evidence he produced in the historical and geological fields is dealt with by turning a blind eye, even though carbon-dating has vindicated him in some of these too. Since his death, Velikovsky has been taken up by organised supporters who, though marching under the banner of inter-disciplinary thinking, display in their turn the usual blinkered vision and refuse to look at, for example, astrology, which could have a very important bearing on many of their conclusions. Thus the followers of all individual innovators, teachers, or systems, as much as the adherents of conventions, traditions and collective beliefs and convictions, are equally reluctant to leave their grooves and think for themselves. Each teaching or point of view has to become rigidified and incapable of further development - hence false. The same applies to religions, mythologies, philosophies, all of which express important truths from some aspect, in some time or context, but become obsolete from the moment they are isolated and seen as dogma; or when the one facet is mistaken for the whole. On the overall social scale all institutions, education, medicine, and the whole administrative and social system, are based upon such rigid, obsolescent, partial and one sided-premises, which depend upon excluding whatever does not fit in with them.

http://paganastrology.com/web/articles/ASTROLOGY AS A NEW MODEL OF REALITY.html