Posts Tagged ‘Ideas’

With all the hoopla about The New Zodiac Sign 2011, I decided to argue about astrology being pseudoscience with the best and only astrologer I know. What follows is the full debate which took place on Facebook.

Me:

Astrology is complete pseudoscience anyway. It doesn’t matter how the astrologer claims to make their measurements and predictions.

The idea that we’d be affected by the gravitational forces and alignment of any celestial bodies is complete bunk. If it were true we’d be affected just as much by comets and other NEO’s, not to mention the exoplanets; most of which haven’t even been discovered until recently. Astrology got its start in a time when the Earth was the center of the universe and the retrograde motion of other planets couldn’t be accurately explained.

Astrologers have just modified their “science” over time in an attempt to remain relevant. This is no different than any other form of religion and divination. I’m guessing that’s a good reason why there is more than one method for astrology and so many variations of religion despite central foundations for either.

Astrologer:

Corey, astrology is not a pseudoscience. it is the oldest science we know of. As far as claiming to make predictions goes, I don’t claim them , I make them and they come true.

The idea is you are affected by magnetic fields and the science,Quantum science backs up the fact that astrology is a science.

The critics are always people who have not studied the science and know nothing about it except for sun sign columns seldom written by astologers

Me:

Talk about bullshit but I’m glad you responded and even mentioned quantum mechanics. Consider the following, Richard Feynman a man who helped create quantum mechanics said the following during a lecture on gravitation:

“The only applications I could think of were, first, in some geophysical prospecting, in predicting the tides; nowadays, more modernly, in working out the motions of the satellites and the planet probes, and so on, that we send up — and also, modernly to calculate the predictions of the planet’s position, which have great utility for astrologers to publish their predictions and horoscopes in the magazines.

That’s the strange world we live in, that all the advances and understanding are used only to continue the *nonsense* which has existed for 2,000 years.”

http://research.microsoft.com/apps/tools/tuva/index.html
feel free to search and watch the video…

Also this page from Feynman’s book “The Meaning of it All”, http://goo.gl/7BDHx

Sorry [name redacted], but astrology is in fact pseudoscience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology#Research

Astrologer:

Corey since when did Richard Phillips Feynman study the subject, he is quoting others in his work and they have not studied the subject. I recognize where he got his thoughts on this subject.
As for astrologers disagreeing with other astrologers ( one of his arguments ) all scientists disagree with one another on methods and methodologies. As I said earlier, today’s critics are bascially scientists in other fields of science along with certain religions. Instead of buying into the works of some who are determined to put the subject down – you should read the history of astrology and why science and religion want to keep it from being accepted.
So, sorry Corey, Feynman is not an expert on the subject

By the way my quantum comments are backed by a scientist who has been in Quantum physics longer than Feynman and is considered the best in the field.As for astrology being 2000 years old , it is older and again this shows he does not know the science. His comments are nonsense and as you put it in response to me “bullshit”

Me:

I take no issue with astrology except when it claims to be science. The fact you claim it is tells me you don’t understand the basic premise of science. I completely understand as I’m sure Feynman did as well; astrology first started forming in the 4th century BC, like I said before, it’s been modified and updated over time to try and remain relevant to people. The latest incarnation of this is your proclamation of a connection to quantum mechanics.

Astrology gives people the same thing religion does, comfort in the face of chaos. If the placebo that these beliefs provides makes people happy and does no other harm I see nothing wrong with it. I do think it’s disingenuous to say that astrology is science but if people know this and still want to spend money on this placebo so be it.

I would love to know who this scientist is that you mention, especially if he has worked in the field longer than Feynman…
“For his contributions to the development of quantum electrodynamics, Feynman, jointly with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965.”

There is no scientist who disagrees with the scientific method. If they do they’re practicing pseudoscience.

“I fully agree with you concerning the pseudo-science of astrology. The interesting point is that this kind of superstition is so tenacious that it could persist through so many centuries.” — Albert Einstein, 1943

Astrologer:

I wrote a reply Corey and thought it took, obviously I did something wrong, I will check back tomorrow and reply if it is not on here. I mentioned the scientist and credentials and our war of words. Study the subject Corey, to criticize something without knowing how it works means you just got caught up in a critics( scientist or not) LACK OF KNOWLEDGE.

Me:

If it’s not there now it won’t be tomorrow.

A while back I did a search for the best scientific explanation for astrology. In that search I read some of this book. My conclusion is astrology remains a pseudoscience:
http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Basis-Astrology-Tuning-Planets/dp/0312077955

In the book the following theory is provided:
(1) Planets effect the solar cycle in specific ways.
(2) The solar cycle effects the geomagnetic field.
(3) The geomagnetic field affects life on Earth in certain observed ways.
(4) Specifically, many species, including man, can be influenced by particular states of the geomagnetic field.
(5) The particular influences appear to correlate with the planetary positions.
(6) I propose that the behavior of the fetus at the time of birth is linked to the cycles within the geomagnetic field, which in turn are influenced by the solar cycle and positions of the planets. Resonance is the phenomenon by which the fetus is phase locked to specific cycles.

Considering the full history of astrology and the fact that early astrologers had no idea what electromagnetism even was I don’t see how they could’ve formed any testable method based on their theories. I still see no evidence of that today.

Please provide a link to a peer reviewed scientific paper that validates this theory. This should be a great challenge as I know of no such work.

Astrologer:

Wow! Corey whether you realize it or not you just gave all the reasons WHY astrology works. And by the way the magnetic fields were known by astrologers way, way back then. You see Corey , you are just reading books by the scientists you happen to like, you are not reading the books by the scientists I have studied – the books do exist . Funny you wanted to know the quantum scientist I quote but you were not interested to hear or read the astrologers
point of view from their research ( written long before your scientists were born).New knowledge isn’t always new!

Me:

So astrologers know how to measure electromagnetic fields? Really?! Astrologers have knowledge of what the fundamental particles are, can astrologers name and talk about any of them with other physicists? What about scientifically explaining how all the man-made electromagnetic fields (which didn’t exist centuries ago) might affect the efficacy of predictions? Surely if astrology works based on these well defined subjects astrologers would have scientific degrees or at least an understanding of a related field?

Since astrology has been around so long surely there would be empirical evidence showing how the accuracy of astrologer’s predictions have improved over time? All the research studies I’ve investigated show that “have repeatedly failed to demonstrate statistically significant relationships between astrological predictions and operationally defined outcomes.”

“Astrologers have argued that there are significant obstacles in carrying out scientific research into astrology today, including lack of funding, lack of background in science and statistics by astrologers, and insufficient expertise in astrology by research scientists and skeptics.”

To me, if astrology were indeed science; astrologers would have the background required to prove their theories. The science of astrology would be universally accepted instead of being practiced by only 1 in 10K people.

“Effect size tests of astrology-based hypotheses conclude that the mean accuracy of astrological predictions is no greater than what is expected by chance.”

Do astrologers keep statistical evidence of claims and predictions to show accuracy? Has this accuracy improved over time? This is a fundamental part of science.

What I’m most curious about now is how you personally use astrology in your daily life? I ask because something psychics often say is “that’s not how it works” when asked why they aren’t rich, famous, successful, happily married, whatever.

If astrologers could make accurate predictions scientifically we’d all be using it in our daily lives and over time we’d improve the predictions to be correct more often than mere chance allows.

If you want to persuade people to believe your claims provide references to these scientists, to these books, and to these studies. And please understand my argument is against astrology being science, not against you personally. Again, I’m not against astrology I’m against it being called science. I find astrology to be fascinating, the history, the beliefs, the psychology involved and so on. Astrology can be beneficial to some people, other than the lack of critical thinking involved; I’m really not bothered by it.

How to identify pseudoscience:
1. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims.
2. Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation.
3. Lack of openness to testing by other experts.
4. Absence of progress.
5. Personalization of issues.
6. Use of misleading language.
7. Absence from citation databases.

Examples given:
1, 2, and 5. “As far as claiming to make predictions goes, I don’t claim them, I make them and they come true”

3. “today’s critics are bascially scientists in other fields of science along with certain religions”

3, 5, and 6. “By the way my quantum comments are backed by a scientist who has been in Quantum physics longer than Feynman and is considered the best in the field”

4. “magnetic fields were known by astrologers way, way back then”

5. “science and religion want to keep it from being accepted”

6. “all scientists disagree with one another on methods and methodologies”

And most importantly…
7. Every reply provided.

I realize I’m not going to change your opinion here. That would require critical thinking. And I suppose that in itself provides further evidence for the lack of science.