Proving Astrology: An Statistical Challenge

[Silas]

Amazing. It's been 55 years and there are still Velikowskians.

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.

About which subjects he evidently knew nothing. In fact he did the opposite of what is claimed here - he did not uncover "evidence and facts that contradict theory", he came up with a theory that contradicted the evidence and facts.

He became the victim of what amounted to an organised persecution and coverup by established science.

This is true. The fact that his book was attempted to be suppressed by some scientists is not something that the world of science is particularly proud of today, as it is contrary to freedom of speech.

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.

I know of exactly one prediction he made that turned out to be correct: that Venus would prove to be a lot hotter than was suspected at the time (1950). However, since this conclusion was based upon his theory that Venus was a "comet" that was ejected from Jupiter and ping ponged around the solar system (incidentally causing plagues and the Joshua miracle of "halting the sun in the sky") before arriving at its current position, the means by which he reached his conclusion has nothing whatsoever to do with the runaway greenhouse effect that actually did cause Venus's high surface temperature, the knowledge of which, brought back by those same space probes, has turned our attention to the possible greenhouse effect we may be effecting on our own planet. Velikowsky's theory is not backed up by any of the evidence of solar system formation (or indeed knowledge of exactly what a comet is) which tells a totally different story.

 

[Robanan]

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, It simply doesn't mean that it works for me too. If it would it doesn't mean that it works for the rest too.

Have you not noticed that you are the only one who sees everything else? Everything and everyone else go by but you "See". Isn't that wonderful? Now think and See what else you can do...

It's just that when you truly discover your individuality you will start to appreciate it (!WARNING! it's a wonderful experience). Then you would understand that no contemporary science and the crude statistics related to it can reproduce the experience faithfully. I'm saying that we are not only "an event" as contemporary astrology aims to make a good guess on its repercussions by looking at the stars and planets far away.

Cheers

 

[SkinWalker]

Then you would understand that no contemporary science and the crude statistics related to it can reproduce the experience faithfully.

But "guesses" with astrology, a con-game on the human predisposition to believe will? You don't need religion and superstition to find your individuality... indeed, if you do, that speaks more about you than it does the bunk you believe in.

 

[John Smith II]

:m: :bugeye: :m: undefined

 

[john smith]

ah a man after my self,r you bloody copying my name??,you pervert

 

[John Smith II]

Piss off you fat, cock juggling thunder cunt!!

 

[John Smith II]

go fuk yourself asshole, you fuking pussy licking auntie fuker,wanker cock face

 

[john smith]

 

[John Smith II]

gtrgdfgdsg

 

[John Smith II]

sdfdsfgdffdgdsfgdssersgt es

 

[John Smith II]

ghjghjgfhjfg

 

[John Smith II]

dfghdfgdghdfgdfg

 

[John Smith II]

 

[SkinWalker]

The ironic thing is, these two assholes make at least as much sense as those that say astrology is a real concept and not a con.

 

[john smith]

The ironic thing is, these two assholes make at least as much sense as those that say astrology is a real concept and not a con.

so you think astrologys a con??,thats jus ridiculous

 

[Robanan]

But "guesses" with astrology, a con-game on the human predisposition to believe will? You don't need religion and superstition to find your individuality... indeed, if you do, that speaks more about you than it does the bunk you believe in.

I think that contemporary astrology with all it's fuss and flavours, inhibits, supresses, and discriminates individuality. I said that you don't need anything else except yourself if you want to notice yourself, so chill out.

 

[Sushupti]

Well, I guess the frist step in any of this would be clear up some GARGANTUAN misconceptions here... I think I've read enough on the matter to be able to help there...

"Forget about how it works, like... how the stars can actually influence our lives."

First point, they don't. and no good astrologist ever said they did. Where planets [including the moon and sun] and other special points are only show you the "quality" of the current time. Only events that match that quality will happen at that time. In a personal chart, this event would be your birth.

This is CORRELATION, btw, and *NOT* in anyway causation. If your astrologist says otherwise, find another one. The idea is that what the sky looks like at the time, and who gets to be born where at that time, are effects of the same cause.

2. "First of all, it is important to know all the elements of astrology."

which you don't... "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."

Actually, it was originally for predicting and planning future events, like when to start a war or business or somesuch. Birth charts are a relatively new occurrance. This does seem to be way mroe popular these days, of course.

3. "Second, it is important to notice that astrology and horoscope are two completely different things."

No they aren't. Horoscopes are part of astrology. "A look at the Hour," more or less.

"Horoscopes analize only the position of the sun. It doesn't even take into account the year or birth."

No, newspaper horoscopes only analyze the position of the sun, a good horoscope is a comparison between your birth chart and the "Chart of the moment." All elements of both.

"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."

I think you're confusing the "Moon's nodes" with the earth's poles... which are not used in astrology.

The Moon's nodes, North and South, are the points where the moon's orbit around the earth touches the earth's orbit around the sun.

I'll try to answer other questions are misconceptions that come up, if I can. This post isn't meant to be rude, btw, just demonstrate how IMENSELY missunderstood astrology is these days.

 

[Sushupti]

Some points from previous posts:

Slotty said:

"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?"

they don't. Most astrologers woudl agree that they're simply too far away. A few quirky ones do include some stars, I've never had the pleasure of meeting any of them, though.


Ophiolite said:

"Forget Jupiter rising in Taurus - the first pass should concentrate on this broad brush approach. "

That would be "Sun sign Astrology." It's notoriously innacurate, and part of the reason people hate astrology so much.


Roman said:

"correlation does not mean causation"

This is just nice to repeat, every now and again.


SkinWalker asked:

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

Like I said, they don't.


SkinWalker also said:

The ironic thing is, these two assholes make at least as much sense as those that say astrology is a real concept and not a con.

Well, that's jsut plain wrong. You can say astrology doesn't work all you want, even if statistics disagree, but astrologers DO believe in what they're doing. Not that there aren't also a ton of actual Con-men posing as asttrologists. Which of course there are. Probably more than real astrologers, in america at least.

 

[TruthSeeker]

This is CORRELATION, btw, and *NOT* in anyway causation.

Not necessarily causation. There is a chance that it is caused. But that is a hypothesis.

which you don't... "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."

Actually, it was originally for predicting and planning future events, like when to start a war or business or somesuch. Birth charts are a relatively new occurrance. This does seem to be way mroe popular these days, of course.

That's true. However, astrology can be used much better if you use it to discover yourself.

No they aren't. Horoscopes are part of astrology. "A look at the Hour," more or less.

No, they are just bad imitations of something much broader...

No, newspaper horoscopes only analyze the position of the sun, a good horoscope is a comparison between your birth chart and the "Chart of the moment." All elements of both.

That's not the definition of horoscope. Horoscopes are those things in newpapers- that's all.

I think you're confusing the "Moon's nodes" with the earth's poles... which are not used in astrology.

In portuguese there is no difference.

I'll try to answer other questions are misconceptions that come up, if I can. This post isn't meant to be rude, btw, just demonstrate how IMENSELY missunderstood astrology is these days.

Are you an astrologer?

 

[SkinWalker]

Well, that's jsut plain wrong. You can say astrology doesn't work all you want, even if statistics disagree, but astrologers DO believe in what they're doing. Not that there aren't also a ton of actual Con-men posing as asttrologists. Which of course there are. Probably more than real astrologers, in america at least.

I say astrology doesn't work because I've seen no evidence that it is any better at predicting the future or describing our present than science and inferences or deductions based on observation. Astrology is a con because the "astrologer" wraps normal observational skill and cold-reading ability in a new package and sells it to the consumer who is all-to-willing to pay for hope, mystery, and intrigue.

I've also yet to see any statistical data that demonstrates that "astrology" isn't simply observation. I have seen statistics that show certain astrological occurrences to certain earthbound events, but wouldn't it be more significant if, considering the billions of possible configurations of stars and planets, that there wouldn't be correlations?

The true test of whether astrology is in fact a real discipline and not simply a con wouldn't be found in statistics, which can be made to fit many scenarios given the enough data. The true test would be what has astrology offered the world in the way of cognitive and substantive data in fields of science and social science? Has astrology successfully predicted events to offer early intervention? Tsunamis, floods, assassinations, and various accidents for instance?

I'm sure someone will take that last question and show what has been predicted and occurred, but they'll never discuss what has been predicted and never occurred. Why? It's bad PR for the con-artist and such data is quickly disgarded and forgotten, even though the misses far, far outweigh the hits.

Astrology is poppycock. But if people want to believe in poppycock, that's their business. But it's the business of all free-thinkers with critical reasoning ability to speak out when these assholes charge money for their poppycock, taking advantage of the human predisposition to believe in the extraordinary.