Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Ustwo · 10-07-2007, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I am amazed at how a place that works for and claims to be "the evolution of humanity, sexuality and philosophy", can put this topic in Paranoia or have so many trying to debunk it and call those who practice it names.

I find it sad really to find so many small minded, individuals that are wanting to preach their views as being "well documented, well researched and they are far more knowledgeable than anyone else" in a forum that is supposed to be open minded, fun, educational and accepting of people's beliefs.

I can understand if this were politics where tempers run high (mature of the beast) or sports, where pride and devotion are the mainstays, but this isn't even "spirituality" this is a belief in an art form that people have practiced for 1000's of years. I also see that the "debunkers" "don't have the time to back up their "proof". That they believe in one thing and since in their small minds that is the "only truth" then someone else's truth must be wrong.

As Shakespeare (arguably) wrote: "there are more things in heaven and hell than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Readings are what you make them, they can be very accurate or they can be drivel. In the end it is up to whomever has the reading to decide and get from it what they choose to.

Sorry your wife is upset, but its still not real.

You are right in that I don't want to take too much time in this, I did once and the post got screwed up and I'd rather not waste it again.

Part of the evolution in human thought is getting rid of the nonsense. Astrology falls under that umbrella. Its an old superstition which has been exploited and abused on a gullible public for centuries. This doesn't make it valid, it makes it a good scam.

But you know what, just for you pan I'll do this, but first, in the words of a 17th century former astrologer....

Quote:

Seven years ago I began to study astrology at the urging of a friend well versed in it, for at the time I was much persuaded of its certainty. He lent me several books that encouraged my belief that astrology was useful and worth studying. I quickly learnt the fundamentals and tested my skill on the charts of myself and friends, using the dates of notable accidents to correct the birth time by the method of directions. However, I found that when the chart fitted these particular accidents it would either fail to describe the person or would fail to fit other accidents.

At first I thought the fault might lie in the arcs of direction, which differed according to author (eg Ptolemy, Kepler, Naibod). So I tried them all very carefully on ten charts and found that none of them worked accurately. This made me doubt sometimes the charts, more often my own skill, but rarely the authors or astrology. So I checked again the various books, and found great differences (eg in rulerships) between our astrologers and the Arabian professors. This made me cautious.

I soon found that when astrologers found no direction in a corrected chart to match a notable accident, they referred to other indications such as that year's revolution, seizing on whatever could be made to match the accident despite better arguments to the contrary. And that when they proclaimed the truth of their predictions, they ignored any aspects, directions or transits that failed to show accidents.

Also, if the case could not fairly be proved, they pointed to defects in their ability, or to needing more time to consult their books, rather than acknowledge the least error in astrology. But it is a miracle if the case cannot be proved, because astrologers have so many rules, and so many aspects, transits, directions, revolutions, and progressions to consider, and so many ways of considering them, that it is impossible not to find something that matches the event even though it is hard to see why the contrary indications should be overpowered. But if even that approach fails, they say that God has overruled the stars.

These failures were one of the reasons that caused me to stop studying astrology and reject it as false. A more important reason was the absence of any way that the planets could influence our actions and thoughts. Thus it was impossible to see how their rays meeting in trine or quartile should be either beneficial or harmful; or how the sun could be more strong in one part of the heavens than another; my experience is that persons with well-placed planets do not attain more than those with ill-placed planets. Also, astrological predictions of the weather are no less ridiculous, for the aspects on which they are based apply as much to Egypt or America as they do to Engand. Indeed, so small is the verity of astrology that even astrologers do not agree on where it lies. Thus William Ramsey (Astrologia Restaurata 1653) says it lies with elections while William Lilly (Christian Astrology 1647) says it lies with horary (he makes his living by them), but John Gadbury (Genethlialogia 1658) laughs at both, thinks that elections are a vanity and horary uncertain, and says it lies with nativities, which I can disprove with one of his own examples of a famous person where, if the name of the person were concealed, the chart would be judged as indicating an idiot rather than a famous person.

Mr Gadbury's cunning in covering the faults of his art is superlative. Most of his charts are of deceased persons, in which having chosen a birth time giving directions for the most notable accidents, he counts this with no little pomp as mightily pronouncing the truth of astrology, all the while concealing how much his corrected time differs from the observed time. But he is more sparing of his predictions for living persons lest the event not occur, and with good reason -- he predicted danger of death in 1661 for the King of Sweden (or 1663 if he should escape 1661), certain death in 1660 for the Prince of Orange, and the same in 1667 for the Duke of York, yet today (1674) all three are still alive and well.

Even if we grant the planets some influence, we must still ask how astrologers can be confident of their judgements when they do not agree on which house system to use, nor on how to use fixed stars. They agree that the stars do have an influence, and some pretend to use them when everything else fails, but they never consider their aspects, which may contradict what is promised by planetary aspects. So how can we be certain of the truth of their predictions?

And tell me, reader, how it is possible that the planets, reflecting only a small part of the sun's light, should have more effect on us than a good fire or candle, which despite their superior light and heat have not the influence on our thoughts and actions that the astrologer says comes from the stars.

Since astrology finds no natural grounds to sustain it, and since experience shows us its falsehood, I hope my readers will withdraw any credit they may have given to this imposture. As for astrologers, I have no hope of reforming them because their profession -- no matter how foolish and opposite to reason -- is too lucrative. My reward for this plain speaking will no doubt be the title of "ignorant and peevish".

I really got a kick out of the last line....

Anyways .....

While I couldn't find the original nature article online and despite about 5 years of wanting to subscribe I've never bothered, I did get a pretty good synopsis.

Quote:

Astrologers who claim they can analyze a person's character and predict a person's life course just by reading the "stars" are fooling the public and themselves, University of California researcher Shawn Carlson has concluded in a unique double-blind test of astrology published in Nature (December 5, 1985). The controlled study was designed specifically to test whether astrologers can do what they say they can do. Carlson, a researcher at UC's Lawerence Berkeley Laboratory, found astrologers had no special ability to interpret personality from astrological readings. Astrologers also performed much worse in the test than they predicted they would, according to Carlson.

The study refutes astrologers' assertions that they can solve clients' personal problems by reading "natal charts," individual horoscopes cast according to the person's date, time, and place of birth. "It is more likely that when sitting face to face with a client, astrologers read clients' needs, hopes, and doubts from their body language," said Carlson, who is also a doctoral canidate in physics at UCLA and a professional magician who has himself performed "psychic ability" demonstrations.

Carlson's research involved 30 American and European astrologers considered by their peers to be among the best practitioners of their art.

The study was designed specifically to test astrology as astrologers define it. Astrologers frequently claim that previous tests by scientists have been based on scientists' misconceptions about astrology.

To check astrologers' claims that they can tell from natal charts what people are really like and how they will fare in life. Carlson asked astrologers to interpret natal charts for 116 unseen "clients." In the test, astrologers were allowed no face-to-face contact with their clients.

For each client's chart, astrologers were provided three anonymous personality profiles - one from the client and two others chosen at random - and asked to choose the one that best matched the natal chart. All personality profles came from real people and were compiled using questionnaires known as the California Personality Inventory (CPI). The CPI, a widely used and scientifically accepted personality test, measures traits like aggressiveness, dominance, and femininity from a long series of multiple-choice questions.

Figure 2 Graph showing percentage correct vs. Weight for astrologers' first-place choices in CPI-profile natal-chart matching. The best linear fit is consistent with the scientifically predicted line of zero slope. No significant tendency is shown for the astrologers to be more correct when they rate a CPI as highly matching a natal chart.

According to Carlson, the study strenuously attempted to avoid anti-astrology bias by making sure astrologers were familiar with the CPI and by incorporating many of the astrologers' suggestions. At the same time, to prevent testers from inadvertently helping astrologers during the test, the project was designed as a double-blind study where neither astrologers nor testers knew any of the answers to experimental questions.

Despite astrologers' claims, Carlson found those in the study could correctly match only one of every three natal charts with the proper personality profile - the very proportion predicted by chance.

In addition, astrologers in the study fell far short of their own prediction that they would correctly match one of every two natal charts provided. Even when astrologers expressed strong confidence in a particular match, they were no more likely to be correct, Carlson found.

Concludes Carlson:

We are now in a position to argue a surprisingly strong case against natal astrology as practiced by reputable astrologers. Great pains were taken to insure that the experiment was unbiased and to make sure that astrology was given every reasonable chance to succeed. It failed. Despite the fact that we worked with some of the best astrologers in the country, recommended by the advising astrologers for their expertise in astrology and in their ability to use the CPI, despite the fact that every reasonable suggestion made by advising astrologers was worked into the experiment, despite the fact that the astrologers approved the design and predicted 50% as the "minimum" effect they would expect to see, astrology failed to perform at a level better than chance. Tested using double-blind methods, the astrologers' predictions proved wrong. Their predicted connection between the positions of the planets and other astronomical objects at the time of birth and the personalities of test subjects did not exist. The experiment clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis.

"A lot of people believe in astrology because they think they have seen it work," Carlson observed. He believes many astrologers are successful at their art because they draw important clues about clients' personalities and lifestyles from facial expressions, body language, and conscious or unconscious verbal responses. "When magicians use the same technique, they call it 'cold reading,' " said Carlson.

Based on his scientific findings, Carlson suggests many people would 'do better to spend their money on trained psychology counselors. However, he disagrees with those who would like to see astrology outlawed. "People believed in astrology for thousands of years and no doubt will continue to do so no matter what scientists discover. They are entitled to their beliefs, but they should know that there is no factual evidence on which to base them."

"The astrologist's reactions so far have been pretty much what I expected," Carlson told the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER. "The astrologists whom I didn't test are saying that the test was not fair because I did not test them. Of course, if I had tested them instead, and they had failed, then the astrologers I actually tested would now be saying that the test was not fair because I did not test them.

"I attended an NCGR party - I was the only non-astrologer in the house - to discuss the research shortly after it was published. The discussion was, to put it politely, energetic. I have not yet received a serious scientific challenge to the paper." The newsletter of the American Federation of Astrologers Network published a response in January (1986). "I was very disappointed to see that it largely consists of personal attacks," Carlson said. He said its few substantive criticisms are attributable to ignorance of his experiment, of the CPI, and of basic scientific methodology.

Carlson's study was supported by Richard Muller, professor of physics at UC Berkeley, and paid for by a general congressional research award.

http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/AstroSkc.htm

TBH its not even worth study, so my cudos to Dr. Shawn Carlson for bothering to do this kind of thing with such rigor when he is far better known for examining real scientific questions.