Astrology - Avoid this thread if you have high blood pressure

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by Sticks

I thought Randi had closed his challenge to those applying to it.

In the newspaper article it lists her email address if anyone wants contact her.

As another poster pointed out, it's limited to those with a media presence. I think the article you linked to would be enough to qualify. Doesn't matter anyway, she undoubtedly knows better than to apply and will squirm and prevaricate to get out of it.

[Jim]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Doesn't matter anyway, she undoubtedly knows better than to apply and will squirm and prevaricate to get out of it.

I'm sure her horoscope would advise against it.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Dr Nigel

'S okay, Mak, we heard you the first time.

Hey, man, back off, I'm a scientist.

I'm professing my faith!

My faith in astrology.

I have faith in astrology.



(-No, we're exterminators. Someone saw a cockroach up on twelve.
-That's gotta be some cockroach.
-Bite your head off, man.)

[Sticks]

Have sent her an email along the lines Trebuchet has suggested.

As far as I am aware Astrology has a 100% track record.


100% in being proved a load of rubbish.

[Noclevername]

Originally Posted by Maksutov

I'm professing my faith!

Unless you're a professional Astrologer, you'd have to be amateuring your faith.

(Just what are the qualifications to be a "professional" astrologer? A thesis writted entirely in Fortune Cookies?)

[Noclevername]

I'M NOT WORTHY! I'M NOT WORTHY!

ADDED: Whoops, the kowtowing smiley went away. Not funny without it. Not that funny with it either, but much less so now.

[SeanF]

Originally Posted by Tobin Dax

Apparently, your birth chart is inconsistent in its forcasting ability (assuming a decent range in ages of clients). I don't see how that's possible for any sort of consistent science.

Hmm. Seems that doctors often make predictions for survival time of cancer sufferers that aren't completely consistent or accurate. Doesn't make it non-scientific, does it?

(Not defending astrology, by they way! Just seems like this might be a bit of a strawman.)

[Tobin Dax]

Originally Posted by SeanF

Hmm. Seems that doctors often make predictions for survival time of cancer sufferers that aren't completely consistent or accurate. Doesn't make it non-scientific, does it?

(Not defending astrology, by they way! Just seems like this might be a bit of a strawman.)

Yeah, it might be. I'm trying to come up with a counter to your argument, and I can't. (Nothing that's legit. I do have enough first- and second-hand experience medical professionals that I know they don't always know what they're doing or what they're talking about, but I can't really support that well enough for this board.)

[Kristophe]

Originally Posted by SeanF

Hmm. Seems that doctors often make predictions for survival time of cancer sufferers that aren't completely consistent or accurate. Doesn't make it non-scientific, does it?

(Not defending astrology, by they way! Just seems like this might be a bit of a strawman.)

That entirely depends on the reason for the range in dates. Doctors and meteorologists tend to predict behaviour by looking at the collective body of observations that have come before, and handing back the average or typical result. They're not claiming to see into the future, but rather using the past as a benchmark.

An astrologer, however, does claim to be able to see the future. So, if the guy before me gets a 15 year chart for his money, and I get a 10 year chart, I want to know why I'm getting less value. The error bars should be much, much tighter if you're actually viewing the future rather than interpolating from the past.

[Stuart van Onselen]

The answer to this dilemma is this:

It's all about statistics.

The doctor bases his estimate on known statistics. He may be wrong for any given individual, but on average, over a large population his estimates will be better than what could be expected by pure chance.

Can any astrologer say that?

[Dr Nigel]

Originally Posted by SeanF

Hmm. Seems that doctors often make predictions for survival time of cancer sufferers that aren't completely consistent or accurate. Doesn't make it non-scientific, does it?

Hmm, well, it could be argued that, yes, it is non-scientific. What doctors are doing in cases like this is making a professional, expert judgement call, based on (i) their own experience, and (ii) whatever they have read about similar documented cases. In short, they're trying to work out into which part of the Gaussian distribution this particular patent falls.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by Sticks

Have sent her an email along the lines Trebuchet has suggested.

As far as I am aware Astrology has a 100% track record.


100% in being proved a load of rubbish.

Good for you!

I'd suggest not holding your breath waiting for a response. Have you written the paper? I've considered writing them myself but you'd carry more weight being local. I may do it yet, with a cc to J. Randi.

[Sticks]

I once sent a letter in reply to a letter from a HB, but they never printed it.

I wonder why?

[Trebuchet]

Letters in response to letters won't make it in most papers. They don't want to get in the middle of a flame war.

Letters in response to a story might or might not make it. But write anyhow. Someone will read it regardless and just maybe they'll think about it. I'm going to have to go back and read that story again, even though it'll just make me irritated at the uncritical coverage. One thing I found humerous is that the paper has a link to their daily horoscope coverage, which even the astrologer being interviewed says is a joke!

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by Dr Nigel

Hmm, well, it could be argued that, yes, it is non-scientific. What doctors are doing in cases like this is making a professional, expert judgement call, based on (i) their own experience, and (ii) whatever they have read about similar documented cases. In short, they're trying to work out into which part of the Gaussian distribution this particular patent falls.

Actually they are compressing a lot of information into a single number which is probably either the mean or the peak of the distribution.

Incidentally, it can't possibly be a Gaussian distribution, since they are unlimited and symmetric that would require a non-zero probability that the person they're giving the life expectancy to died while ago.

[sarongsong]

Originally Posted by Stuart van Onselen

...
It's all about statistics.
The doctor bases his estimate on known statistics. He may be wrong for any given individual, but on average, over a large population his estimates will be better than what could be expected by pure chance.
Can any astrologer say that?

I am not an astrologer, but that might be similar to their comparing horoscopes (charts) over time, to what happened/happens to their interpretations.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

Incidentally, it can't possibly be a Gaussian distribution, since they are unlimited and symmetric that would require a non-zero probability that the person they're giving the life expectancy to died while ago.

And non-continuous besides

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by sarongsong

I am not an astrologer, but that might be similar to their comparing horoscopes (charts) over time, to what happened/happens to their interpretations.

And if they actually did that, great. However, they don't; if they did, they would find the numbers don't work in their favour.

No, thank you--I'll take modern medicine any day, even if it is taking too blessed long to find out what's wrong with me--including acknowledging the diagnosis I got some 15 years ago.

[sarongsong]

Do you agree with that diagnosis?

[Gillianren]

Yes. Yes, I do. What's more to the point, the evidence supports it.

[sarongsong]

Was that diagnosis accompanied with a recommended protocol that helped at the time and later changed/over-ruled by subsequent caregivers, or was it simply (and accurately) a diagnosis only?

[Gillianren]

It was a diagnosis coupled with therapy; I wasn't given drugs at the time of diagnosis. More than a few years elapsed between the last bout of serious medical treatment and the current one; it's taken quite some time for them to recognize my symptoms, because I spend more time depressed than I do manic.

[Stuart van Onselen]

Originally Posted by sarongsong

I am not an astrologer, but that might be similar to their comparing horoscopes (charts) over time, to what happened/happens to their interpretations.

As Gillian said, no astrologer has ever done that. And even if they did, they would almost certainly not find any correlation between character types or life history with star sign.

No statistical study has ever shown any astrologer's predictions to correspond with reality beyond what would be expected by dumb luck and coincidence. And a more thorough study of populations and star-charts would not do a thing to improve their success rate.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

[edit]No, thank you--I'll take modern medicine any day, even if it is taking too blessed wrong to find out what's wrong with me--including acknowledging the diagnosis I got some 15 years ago.

Would that be "too blessed long"? If it is it's still wrong. Hope there's some progress soon.

I speak from experience.

[sarongsong]

Originally Posted by Stuart van Onselen

As Gillian said, no astrologer has ever done that. And even if they did, they would almost certainly not find any correlation between character types or life history with star sign...

Really?...how do you know this? For all we know, medicine and astrology may be roughly the same age; that's a l-o-n-g history of observation to draw from.

[Stuart van Onselen]

The simple fact that all scientific studies performed to date have shown no statistical correlation between astrological predictions and subsequent events implies that there is no correlation. Which in turn implies that no amount of study would find such a correlation.

Maybe, just maybe, there is some correlation hidden somewhere that science has not found yet. But then astrologers haven't found it either!

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by sarongsong

Really?...how do you know this? For all we know, medicine and astrology may be roughly the same age; that's a l-o-n-g history of observation to draw from.

Of course there is.

One could could say that astrology is to accurate predictions as colloidal silver is to medicine.

[Stuart van Onselen]

Actually, AFAIK, colloidal silver does work. Just not as well as antibiotics, and it carries the risk of a nasty overdose condition. (I had to look it up on Quackwatch.com for my mother the other day.)

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Stuart van Onselen

Actually, AFAIK, colloidal silver does work. Just not as well as antibiotics, and it carries the risk of a nasty overdose condition. (I had to look it up on Quackwatch.com for my mother the other day.)

Welcome to the (small) group of bluebloods here who support this quackery.

Meanwhile do a search of the fora re the subject (colloidal silver) and find the various debunkings.

[Moose]

I haven't read through the whole thread (my blood pressure, after all), but Phil brought up a good point on a number of occasions.

If astrology had predictive value by using planetary positions to... well... predict. And if those techniques improved as you discovered planets. Then you could use observations of real events to detect the presence (and positions) of unknown planets.

The technique has been used with gravity models to predict the existence of and narrow down the locations of Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto.

Since astrology cannot do this, then astrology necessarily must have no predictive value. AKA, it doesn't work.