JUST IN CASE anyone cannot see through "Mystic Meg's" woefully inadequate "rebuttal", I shall go through it with you. (I have "rebuttal" in inverted commas as I really don't think that it is worthy of such a lofty title)
Quote:
SCIENTISTS and astrologers are engaged in a new star wars – over whether horoscopes are a load of rubbish.
Canadian boffins claim to have discredited the idea that our characteristics and lives are shaped by the influence of the sun, moon and other planets when we are born.
They spent several decades studying 2,000 Britons born within minutes of each other and concluded that astrologers’ belief that they all had similar traits was nonsense.
But astrologers are furious at the report and say its findings are simplistic and highly selective.
Here, the world’s top astrologer, The Sun’s own Mystic Meg, hits back.
OF course, I should have seen this attack coming – scientists love to discredit things they can’t explain.
|
Yeah, scientists hate trying to solve a puzzle, which is why nobody bothers to study quantum physics, or particle physics, or super-string theory.
Quote:
|
And, needless to say, it doesn’t take an astrologer to foresee that I totally disagree with these “findings”.
|
Yeah, And I'm sure your accountant hoped that you would disagree also.
Quote:
This report in Canada’s Journal of Consciousness Studies doesn’t prove a thing.
The claims are based on 2,000 Pisces babies, born in 1958, and assessed at the ages of 11, 16, and 23.
You will notice straight away that the “experts” actually finished their survey in 1981 — so this “new study” has been gathering dust for 22 years.
|
Nope. They stopped receiving new data in that year. The report is only coming out now. Why the delay? Can't say for sure, but I'm sure it wasn't exactly high priority stuff. I'm still amazed anyone bothered.
Quote:
The researchers claim the guinea pigs’ characters and the way their lives worked out were not similar — and, therefore, that their astrological birthcharts were worthless.
First of all, a survey based on just one zodiac sign — and without any reference to the other 12 — doesn’t seem very thorough.
|
There's 13 star signs? Or maybe math just isn't your strong point.
Anyway, so what are you saying? Only one of your star signs are ineffective? And coincidently that is the one which has been proven to be a fraud?
Quote:
|
And there is much more to take into account than the position of the sun when a birthchart is calculated. Something new happens in the sky every few minutes.
|
Which is precisely why the subjects were all born within a minute of each other.
Anyway, if you are saying that you need to know the exact time of someone's birth in order to make any kind of useful prediction, then what the hell are the weekly 12 (13!?) start signs doing in your column every week? Just conning the punters so you can get a weekly salary?
Quote:
|
Secondly, one of the two authors, Geoffrey Dean was once an astrologer — obviously not a very successful one — and now makes a living from claiming it is all nonsense.
|
Ohh goody! It's the epitome of a logic argument: The character assassination! Surely that fact that one of the authors has first hand experience in the field would lend credibility to the report, not take away from it?
Quote:
|
At best, these findings are just a matter of opinion — after all, science is not the same as fact.
|
Hehehe. I can't even rebut this, I laughing too hard….*ahem*
All of the characteristics were based on objective quantities. No opinion was involved.
Further more if you are going to claim that science is not grounded in fact when defending astrology.....sorry can't go on. laughing too hard.
Quote:
|
Think how one week you read a scientific report saying coffee is bad for you, followed, a week later, by an equally scientific report saying that coffee is good for you.
|
Not the same thing. In this type of situation there are a huge number of variables to take into account, that is why you end up with the inconsistencies. Astrology is the exact opposite, it claims that everything boils down to just one variable: Date of Birth.
Quote:
Astrology is more of a belief system.
Not even astrologers agree exactly why it works but they firmly believe from their own experience that it does.
|
Maybe they "believe", because they can rake in a load of cash, without having to bother to get up off their arses and get a real job.
Actually come to think of it, that not a bad idea. Here *I* am working my ass off to make money. Maybe *I* could adopt such a belief system?
Quote:
|
Because of that scientists feel uneasy about it and only a handful ever dare to speak up in its favour.
|
Yeah. that's true. Scientists are infamous about being shy about their opinions. The majority of scientists are probably in the closet about checking their signs every week.
Quote:
But don’t you find that the best things in life are those you can’t explain?
Who can truly understand how we fall in love, the feelings we get watching a beautiful sunset, or that sense of knowing who is calling you just before the phone rings?
Astrology goes back 6,000 years, and for all that time people have studied the skies and seen a link between the movement of the planets, against the fixed background of the stars and what happens down here on Earth.
Astrologers have passed on their knowledge over the generations to help clients.
|
hmmmm......
Quote:
I love the letters I get from Sun readers saying how my daily star forecasts have worked out.
I have to confess that I did a survey of my own some years ago.
More than 350,000 people, from all the 12 star signs, filled in a special questionnaire about their love lives. In all the categories the star sign made a real difference.
For instance, my survey revealed that eight out of ten women said their best ever sex was with a Scorpio male, while men rated Aries as the sexiest woman.
The secret fantasies of every star sign were different, too.
With women, Aries has sexy dreams about athletes, Taurus wants chefs, Gemini fancies politicians.
Cancer melts for home makeover kings, Leo fantasises about movie stars, Virgo yearns for firemen.
Libra wants to score with footballers, Scorpio loves soap stars and Sagittarius are turned on by newsreaders.
Capricorn dreams of policemen, Aquarius fantasises about pop stars and Pisces has a thing for film directors.
And for the men, Aries loves nurses, while for Taurus it is pop stars.
Gemini has a yen for newsreaders, Cancer fantasises about secretaries, Leo loves Hollywood stars. Virgo fantasises about exotic dancers, Libra, tennis stars.
Scorpio likes Page 3 girls, Sagittarius is switched on by telly doctors and Capricorn are mad for policewomen. Aquarius loves TV presenters and Pisces has the hots for teachers.
|
hang on...just a second.....*scrolls back up*...
Didn't you, just a second ago, use the fact that the births have to be exact
to the minute in order to get correlations such as this to discredit the scientific report? You may be an idiot, but you could at least be a
consistent idiot.
Or maybe sexual fantasies are one of the traits that aren't effected by these
by the minute celestial changes? Which coincidentally was not one of the traits in the report!
Wow they were an unlucky pair! Studying the only defective star sign, and comparing only traits that could not be used, as they could be affected by birth times of mere minutes, despite the fact that this was taken into consideration!
Quote:
|
I think these results have more relevance to you than the conclusions of a bunch of scientific spoilsports.
|
MUHAHAHAHAHA. I love this line so much, I really do!