posted March 07, 2014 02:30 PM            

Astrology consists of a number of belief systems that hold that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world. Astrology has been rejected by the scientific community as having no explanatory power for describing the universe. Scientific testing of astrology has been conducted, and no evidence has been found to support the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions.[1]:424

Where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been falsified.[1]:424 The most famous test was headed by Shawn Carlson and included a committee of scientists and a committee of astrologers. It led to the conclusion that natal astrology performed no better than chance. Astrologer and psychologist Michel Gauquelin, claimed to have found statistical support for "the Mars effect" in the birth dates of athletes, but it could not be replicated in further studies. The organisers of later studies claimed that Gauquelin had tried to influence their inclusion criteria for the study, by suggesting specific individuals be removed. It has also been suggested, by Geoffrey Dean, that the reporting of birth times by parents (before the 1950s) may have caused the apparent effect.

Astrology has not demonstrated its effectiveness in controlled studies and has no scientific validity,[1][2]:85 and as such, is regarded as pseudoscience.[3][4]:1350 There is no proposed mechanism of action by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth that does not contradict well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics.[5]:249[6]

Contents

1 Introduction
2 Historical relationship with astronomy
3 Philosophy of science
3.1 Falsifiability
3.2 "No puzzles to solve"
3.3 Progress, practice and consistency
3.4 Irrationality
4 Tests of astrology
4.1 Carlson's experiment
4.2 Dean and Kelly
4.3 Mars effect
5 Theoretic obstacles
5.1 Lack of consistency
5.2 Lack of physical basis
5.3 Lack of predictive power
5.4 Lack of mechanism
6 Psychology and sociology
7 Notes
8 References
9 External links

Introduction

The majority of professional astrologers rely on performing astrology-based personality tests and making relevant predictions about the remunerator's future.[2]:83 Those who continue to have faith in astrology have been characterised as doing so "in spite of the fact that there is no verified scientific basis for their beliefs, and indeed that there is strong evidence to the contrary".[7] Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson commented on astrological belief, saying that "part of knowing how to think is knowing how the laws of nature shape the world around us. Without that knowledge, without that capacity to think, you can easily become a victim of people who seek to take advantage of you".[8]

During Wonders of the Solar System, a TV programme by the BBC, the physicist Brian Cox said "Despite the fact that astrology is a load of rubbish, Jupiter can in fact have a profound influence on our planet. And it’s through a force . . . gravity." This upset believers in astrology who complained that there was no astrologer to provide an alternative viewpoint. To clarify, Cox gave the following statement to the BBC: "I apologise to the astrology community for not making myself clear. I should have said that this new age drivel is undermining the very fabric of our civilisation." [9] In the programme Stargazing Live, Cox further commented by saying: "in the interests of balance on the BBC, yes astrology is nonsense." [10] In an editorial in the medical journal BMJ, editor Trevor Jackson cited this incident showing where false balance could occur. False balance is where a false, unaccepted or spurious viewpoint is included alongside a well reasoned one in media reports and TV appearances and as a result the false balance implies "there were two equal sides to a story when clearly there were not".[9]
Historical relationship with astronomy
Main article: astrology and astronomy

Ptolemy's work on astronomy was driven to some extent by the desire, like all astrologers of the time, to easily calculate the planetary movements.[11]:40 Early western astrology operated under the ancient Greek concepts of the Macrocosm and microcosm; and thus medical astrology related what happened to the planets and other objects in the sky to medical operations. This provided a further motivator for the study of astronomy.[11]:73 While still defending the practice of astrology, Ptolemy acknowledged that the predictive power of astronomy for the motion of the planets and other celestial bodies ranked above astrological predictions.[12]:344

During the Islamic Golden Age, astronomy was funded so that the astronomical parameters, such as the eccentricity of the sun's orbit, required for the Ptolemaic model could be calculated to a sufficient accuracy and precision. Those in positions of power, like the Fatimid Caliphate vizier in 1120, funded the construction of observatories so that astrological predictions, fuelled by precise planetary information, could be made.[11]:55–56 Since the observatories were built to help in making astrological predictions, few of these observatories lasted long due to the prohibition against astrology within Islam, and most were torn down during or just after construction.[11]:57

The clear rejection of astrology in works of astronomy started in 1679, with the yearly publication La Connoissance des temps.[11]:220 Unlike the west, in Iran, the rejection of heliocentrism continued up towards the start of the 20th century, in part motivated by a fear that this would undermine the widespread belief in astrology and Islamic cosmology in Iran.[13]:10 The first work, Falak al-sa'ada by Ictizad al-Saltana, aimed at undermining this belief in astrology and "old astronomy" in Iran was published in 1861. On astrology, it cited the inability of different astrologers to make the same prediction about what occurs following a conjunction, and described the attributes astrologers gave to the planets as implausible.[13]:17–18
Philosophy of science
Popper proposed falsifiability as ideas that distinguish science from non-science, using Astrology as the example of an idea that has not dealt with falsification during experiment.
Falsifiability

Science and non-science are often distinguished by the criterion of falsifiability. The criterion was first proposed by philosopher of science Karl Popper. To Popper, science does not rely on induction, instead scientific investigations are inherently attempts to falsify existing theories through novel tests. If a single test fails, then the theory is falsified.

Therefore, any test of a scientific theory must prohibit certain results that falsify the theory, and expect other specific results consistent with the theory. Using this criterion of falsifiability, astrology is a pseudoscience.[14]

Astrology was Popper's most frequent example of pseudoscience.[15]:7 Popper regarded astrology as "pseudo-empirical" in that "it appeals to observation and experiment", but "nevertheless does not come up to scientific standards".[16]:44

In contrast to scientific disciplines, astrology does not responded to falsification through experiment. According to Professor of neurology Terence Hines this is a hallmark of pseudoscience.[17]:206
"No puzzles to solve"

In contrast to Popper, the philosopher Thomas Kuhn argued that it was not lack of falsifiability that makes astrology unscientific, but rather that the process and concepts of astrology are non-empirical.[18]:401 To Kuhn, although astrologers had, historically, made predictions that "categorically failed," this in itself does not make it unscientific, nor do the attempts by astrologers to explain away the failure by claiming it was due to the creation of a horoscope being very difficult (through subsuming, after the fact, a more general horoscope that leads to a different prediction).

Rather, in Kuhn's eyes, astrology is not science because it was always more akin to medieval medicine; they followed a sequence of rules and guidelines for a seemingly necessary field with known shortcomings, but they did no research because the fields are not amenable to research[15]:8, and so, "They had no puzzles to solve and therefore no science to practise."[15]:8[18]:401

While an astronomer could correct for failure, an astrologer could not. An astrologer could only explain away failure but could not revise the astrological hypothesis in a meaningful way. As such, to Kuhn, even if the stars could influence the path of humans through life astrology is not scientific.[15]:8
Progress, practice and consistency

Philosopher Paul Thagard believed that Astrology can not be regarded as falsified in this sense until it has been replaced with a successor. In the case of predicting behaviour, psychology is the alternative.[19]:228 To Thagard a further criteria of demarcation of science from pseudoscience was that the state of the art must progress and that the community of researchers should be attempting to compare the current theory to alternatives, and not be "selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations".[19]:227–228

Progress is defined here as explaining new phenomena and solving existing problems, yet astrology has failed to progress having only changed little in nearly 2000 years.[19]:228[20]:549 To Thagard, astrologers are acting as though engaged in normal science believing that the foundations of astrology were well established despite the "many unsolved problems", and in the face of better alternative theories (Psychology). For these reasons Thagard viewed astrology as pseudoscience.[19]:228

To Thagard, astrology should not be regarded as a pseudoscience on the failure of Gauquelin's to find any correlation between the various astrological signs and someone's career, twins not showing the expected correlations from having the same signs in twin studies, lack of agreement on the significance of the planets discovered since Ptolemy's time and large scale disasters wiping out individuals with vastly different signs at the same time.[19]:226–227 Rather, his demarcation of science requires three distinct foci; "theory, community [and] historical context".

While verification and falsifiability focused on the theory, Kuhn's work focused on the historical context, but the astrological community should also be considered. Whether or not they:[19]:226–227

are focused on comparing their approach to others.
have a consistent approach.
try to falsify their theory through experiment.

In this approach, true falsification rather than modifying a theory to avoid the falsification only really occurs when an alternative theory is proposed.[19]:228
Irrationality

For the philosopher Edward W. James, astrology is irrational not because of the numerous problems with mechanisms and falsification due to experiments, but because an analysis of the astrological literature shows that it is infused with fallacious logic and poor reasoning.[21]:34

What if throughout astrological writings we meet little appreciation of coherence, blatant insensitivity to evidence, no sense of a hierachy of reasons, slight command over the contextual force of critieria, stubborn unwillingness to pursue an argument where it leads, stark naivete concerning the efficacy of explanation and so on? In that case, I think, we are perfectly justified in rejecting astrology as irrational. ... Astrology simply fails to meet the multifarious demands of legitimate reasoning."
—Edward W. James[21]:34

This poor reasoning includes appeals to ancient astrologers such as Kepler despite any relevance of topic or specific reasoning, and vague claims. The claim that evidence for astrology is that people born at roughly "the same place have a life pattern that is very similar" is vague, but also ignores that time is reference frame dependent and gives no definition of "same place" despite the planet moving in the reference frame of the solar system. Other comments by astrologers are based on severely erroneus interpretations of basic physics, such as a claim by one astrologer that the solar system looks like an atom. Further, James noted that response to criticism also relies on faulty logic, an example of which was a response to twin studies with the statement that coincidences in twins are due to astrology, but any differences are due to "heredity and environment", while for other astrologers the issues are too difficult and they just want to get back to their astrology.[21]:32 Further, to astrologers, if something appears in their favour, they latch upon it as proof, while making no attempt to explore its implications, preferring to refer to the item in favour as definitive; possibilities that do not make astrology look favourable are ignored.[21]:33
Tests of astrology

Astrologers often avoid making verifiable predictions, and instead rely on vague statements that let them try to avoid falsification.[16]:48–49 Across several centuries of testing, the predictions of astrology have never been more accurate than that expected by chance alone.[2] One approach used in testing astrology quantitatively is through blind experiment. When specific predictions from astrologers were tested in rigorous experimental procedures in the Carlson test, the predictions were falsified.[1]
Carlson's experiment
Shawn Carlson, the physicist behind a double-blind procedure to test astrology agreed to by panels of astrologers and physicists. The experiment led to the conclusion that natal astrologers performs no better than chance.

The Shawn Carlson's double-blind chart matching tests, in which 28 astrologers agreed to match over 100 natal charts to psychological profiles generated by the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) test, is one of the most renowned tests of astrology.[22][23] The experimental protocol used in Carlson's study was agreed to by a group of physicists and astrologers prior to the experiment.[1] Astrologers, nominated by the National Council for Geocosmic Research, acted as the astrological advisors, and helped to ensure, and agreed, that the test was fair.[23]:117[24]:420 They also chose 26 of the 28 astrologers for the tests, the other 2 being interested astrologers who volunteered afterwards.[24]:420 The astrologers came from Europe and the United States.[23]:117 The astrologers helped to draw up the central proposition of natal astrology to be tested.[24]:419 Published in Nature in 1985, the study found that predictions based on natal astrology were no better than chance, and that the testing "clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis".[24]
Dean and Kelly

The scientist and former astrologer, Geoffrey Dean and psychologist Ivan Kelly,[25] conducted a large scale scientific test, involving more than one hundred cognitive, behavioural, physical and other variables, but found no support for astrology.[26] Furthermore, a meta-analysis was conducted pooling 40 studies consisting of 700 astrologers and over 1,000 birth charts. Ten of the tests, which had a total of 300 participating, involved the astrologers picking the correct chart interpretation out of a number of others that were not the astrologically correct chart interpretation (usually 3 to 5 others). When the date and other obvious clues were removed no significant results were found to suggest there was any preferred chart.[26]:190 A further test involved 45 confident[a] astrologers, with an average of 10 years experience and 160 test subjects (out of an original sample size of 1198 test subjects) who strongly favoured certain characteristics in the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire to extremes.[26]:191 The astrologers performed much worse than merely basing decisions off the individuals age, and much worse than 45 control subjects who did not use birth charts at all.[b][26]:191
Mars effect
Main article: Mars effect
The initial Mars effect finding, showing the relative frequency of the diurnal position of Mars in the birth charts (N = 570) of "eminent athletes" (red solid line) compared to the expected results [after Michel Gauquelin 1955][27]

In 1955, astrologer[28] and psychologist Michel Gauquelin stated that although he had failed to find evidence to support such indicators as the zodiacal signs and planetary aspects in astrology, he had found positive correlations between the diurnal positions of some of the planets and success in professions (such as doctors, scientists, athletes, actors, writers, painters, etc.), which astrology traditionally associates with those planets.[27] The best-known of Gauquelin's findings is based on the positions of Mars in the natal charts of successful athletes and became known as the "Mars effect".[29]:213 A study conducted by seven French scientists attempted to replicate the claim, but found no statistical evidence.[29]:213–214 They attributed the effect to selective bias on Gauquelin's part, accusing him of attempting to persuade them to add or delete names from their study.[30]

Geoffrey Dean has suggested that the effect may be caused by self-reporting of birth dates by parents rather than any issue with the study by Gauquelin. The suggestion is that a small subset of the parents may have had changed birth times to be consistent with better astrological charts for a related profession. The sample group was taken from a time where belief in astrology was more common. Gauquelin had failed to find the Mars effect in more recent populations, where a nurse or doctor recorded the birth information. The number of births under astrologically undesirable conditions was also lower, indicating more evidence that parents choose dates and times to suit their beliefs.[23]:116
Theoretic obstacles

Beyond the scientific tests Astrology has failed, proposals for astrology face a number of other obstacles, including lack of consistency, lack of ability to predict missing planets, lack of any connection of the zodiac to the constellations, and lack of any plausible mechanism.
Lack of consistency

Testing the validity of astrology can be difficult because there is no consensus amongst astrologers as to what astrology is or what it can predict.[2]:83 Most professional astrologers are paid to predict the future or describe a person's personality and life, but most horoscopes only make vague untestable statements that can apply to almost anyone.[2]:83

Georges Charpak and Henri Broch dealt with claims from western astrology in the book Debunked! ESP, Telekinesis, and other Pseudoscience.[31] They pointed out that astrologers have only a small knowledge of astronomy and that they often do not take into account basic features such as the precession of the equinoxes, which would change the position of the sun with time. They commented on the example of Elizabeth Teissier who claimed that "the sun ends up in the same place in the sky on the same date each year" as the basis for claims that two people with the same birthday but a number of years apart should be under the same planetary influence. Charpak and Broch noted that "there is a difference of about twenty-two thousand miles between Earth's location on any specific date in two successive years" and that thus they should not be under the same influence according to astrology. Over a 40 years period there would be a difference greater than 780,000 miles.[32]:6–7
Lack of physical basis

Edward W. James, commented that attaching significance to the constellation on the celestial sphere the sun is in at sunset was done on the basis of human factors—namely, that astrologers didn't want to wake up early, and the exact time of noon was hard to know. Further, the creation of the zodiac and the disconnect from the constellations was because the sun is not in each constellation for the same amount of time.[21]:25

This disconnect from the constellations led to the problem with precession separating the zodiac symbols from the constellations that they once were related to.[21]:26

The tropical zodiac has no connection to the stars, and as long as no claims are made that the constellations themselves are in the associated sign, astrologers avoid the concept that precession seemingly moves the constellations.[32] Charpak and Broch, noting this, referred to astrology based on the tropical zodiac as being "...empty boxes that have nothing to do with anything and are devoid of any consistency or correspondence with the stars."[32] Sole use of the tropical zodiac is inconsistent with references made, by the same astrologers, to the Age of Aquarius, which depends on when the vernal point enters the constellation of Aquarius.[1]
Lack of predictive power
Shown in the image is Pluto and its satellites. Astrology was claimed to work before the discovery of Neptune, Uranus and Pluto and they have now been included in the discourse on an ad hoc basis.

Some astrologers make claims that the position of all the planets must be taken into account, but astrologers were unable to predict the existence of Neptune based on mistakes in horoscopes. Instead Neptune was predicted using Newton's law of universal gravitation.[2] The grafting on of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto into the astrology discourse was done on an ad hoc basis.[1]

On the demotion of Pluto to the status of dwarf planet, Philip Zarka of the Paris Observatory in Meudon, France wondered how astrologers should respond:[1]

Should astrologers remove it from the list of luminars [Sun, Moon and the 8 planets other than earth] and confess that it did not actually bring any improvement? If they decide to keep it, what about the growing list of other recently discovered similar bodies (Sedna, Quaoar. etc), some of which even have satellites (Xena, 2003EL61)?

Lack of mechanism

Astrology has been criticised for failing to provide a physical mechanism that links the movements of celestial bodies to their purported effects on human behaviour. In a lecture in 2001, Stephen Hawking stated "The reason most scientists don't believe in astrology is because it is not consistent with our theories that have been tested by experiment."[33] In 1975, amid increasing popular interest in astrology, The Humanist magazine presented a rebuttal of astrology in a statement put together by Bart J. Bok, Lawrence E. Jerome, and Paul Kurtz.[7] The statement, entitled 'Objections to Astrology', was signed by 186 astronomers, physicists and leading scientists of the day. They said that there is no scientific foundation for the tenets of astrology and warned the public against accepting astrological advice without question. Their criticism focused on the fact that there was no mechanism whereby astrological effects might occur:

We can see how infinitesimally small are the gravitational and other effects produced by the distant planets and the far more distant stars. It is simply a mistake to imagine that the forces exerted by stars and planets at the moment of birth can in any way shape our futures.[7]

Astronomer Carl Sagan declined to sign the statement. Sagan said he took this stance not because he thought astrology had any validity, but because he thought that the tone of the statement was authoritarian, and that dismissing astrology because there was no mechanism (while "certainly a relevant point") was not in itself convincing. In a letter published in a follow-up edition of The Humanist, Sagan confirmed that he would have been willing to sign such a statement had it described and refuted the principal tenets of astrological belief. This, he argued, would have been more persuasive and would have produced less controversy.[7]

The use of poetic imagery based on the concepts of the macrocosm and microcosm, "as above so below" to decide meaning such as Edward W. James' example of "Mars above is red, so Mars below means blood and war", is a false cause fallacy.[21]:26

Many astrologers claim that astrology is scientific.[34] Some of these astrologers have proposed conventional causal agents such as electromagnetism and gravity.[34][35] Scientists reject these mechanisms as implausible[34] since, for example, the magnetic field, when measured from earth, of a large but distant planet such as Jupiter is far smaller than that produced by ordinary household appliances.[35] Carl Jung sought to invoke synchronicity, the claim that two events have some sort of acausaul connection, to explain the lack of statistically significant results on astrology from a single study he conducted. However, synchronicity itself is considered neither testable nor falsifiable.[36] The study was subsequently heavily criticised for its non-random sample and its use of statistics and also its lack of consistency with astrology.[c][37]
Psychology and sociology
See also: Forer effect

It has also been shown that confirmation bias is a psychological factor that contributes to belief in astrology.[38]:344[39]:180–181[40]:42–48 Confirmation bias is a form of cognitive bias.[d][41]:553

From the literature, astrology believers often tend to selectively remember those predictions that turned out to be true, and do not remember those that turned out false. Another, separate, form of confirmation bias also plays a role, where believers often fail to distinguish between messages that demonstrate special ability and those that do not.[39]:180–181

Thus there are two distinct forms of confirmation bias that are under study with respect to astrological belief.[39]:180–181

The Barnum effect is where people accept unclear expositions of their personality if there is the appearance of some complex process in the derivation of the personality profile. If more information is requested for a prediction, the more accepting people are of the results.[38]:344 In 1949 Bertram Forer conducted a personality test on students in his classroom.[38]:344 While seemingly giving the students individualised results, he instead gave each student an identical sheet that discussed their personality. The personality descriptions were taken from a book on astrology. When the students were asked to comment on the accuracy of the test, more than 40% gave it the top mark of 5 out of 5, and the average rating was 4.2.[42]:134, 135 The results of this study have been replicated in numerous other studies.[43]:382 The study of this Barnum/Forer effect has been mostly focused on the level of acceptance of fake horoscopes and fake astrological personality profiles.[43]:382 Recipients of these personality assessments consistently fail to distinguish common and uncommon personality descriptors.[43]:383 In a study by Paul Rogers and Janice Soule (2009), which was consistent with previous research on the issue, it was found that those who believed in astrology are generally more susceptible to giving more credence to the Barnum profile than sceptics.[43]:393

By a process known as self-attribution, it has been shown in numerous studies that individuals with knowledge of astrology tend to describe their personality in terms of traits compatible with their sun sign. The effect is heightened when the individuals were aware the personality description was being used to discuss astrology. Individuals who were not familiar with astrology had no such tendency.[44]

posted March 07, 2014 03:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Global warming is nothing more than the planet naturally heating up as it comes out of an ice age. So, science isn't worthy of being used if it's inconvenient? Gravity affects us, huh? Do you know how far away Pluto is? It's great seeing the scientific-minded here spout off unscientific nonsense.

---

posted March 07, 2014 05:35 PM            

quote:

---

You're kidding, right? You seriously don't know that Astrology is not based on scientific principles? If you think you can argue for Astrology as a science, then by all means go ahead. You sound like me now! Welcome to the club.

---

Is this written to me? If so, I think you should know that astrology is based upon a fundamental scientific principle: observation.

quote:

---

Global warming is nothing more than the planet naturally heating up as it comes out of an ice age.

---

posted March 08, 2014 07:46 PM            

quote:

---

With all due respect, you seem lost without an authority figure telling you what to think and what the science is or isn't.

---

You're going all this way just to try to get a dig in? I can't even consider it a dig really. I mean, what exactly is the shame in taking the best information available? Isn't that what any wise person does? If I were a CEO of a company, wouldn't I want to have a crystal clear image of the realities involved in my business? Isn't that the only way to ensure everything is handled properly?

Not only so, but this notion that I would be lost without an authority figure seems like a super ridiculous notion considering the people right here offering themselves up as authority figures every day. If I myself felt adrift without an authority figure why wouldn't I latch on to the sure-footed authority of someone like you or Jwhop? The answer is easy: the authority hasn't provided a clear sense of being absolutely in touch with reality (can't construct a coherent argument based upon solid evidence). There's a litmus for the authority I'll grant that is based upon rational and reasonable expertise. As I've said to you plenty of times before: Why is it that the most logical places a person could look for information on the climate all disagree with your assessment? Either they, whose lives are filled taking the measurements and making the observations that create the scientific background for modern climate science, are wrong, or you are. It's very clear and simple. I always try to explain the defect in argument as best I can in hopes that the same errors won't continue.

quote:

---

How do you propose that the heavenly bodies affect the minds and personalities of humans?

---

posted March 08, 2014 08:17 PM            

The planets don't so much affect as describe the energies at work.at any given time, the environment within which we function. And like AG, I see astrology as much as a language as a science.

posted March 08, 2014 09:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
It's not a dig. That's why I said with all due respect. It's an observation.

---

I find that when people say "with all due respect", what they often mean is "you are being ridiculous". It's because what follows such a phrase is always an observation about the innate ways in which the other person is wrong. Because of this it is commonly applied as a master suppression technique to delegitimize what the other is saying, which is why I would be careful to use those words if that is not what you intend.

I don't think this is what you mean to do, Randall... But I think it is how it can be perceived.

posted March 09, 2014 03:38 AM            

quote:

---

Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions without letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows.

And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that's contrary to their point of view.

Researchers asked staunch party members from both sides to evaluate information that threatened their preferred candidate prior to the 2004 Presidential election. The subjects' brains were monitored while they pondered

---

quote:

---

The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say.

Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained.
Advertise

The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," Westen said. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning.

---

Just to be clear I don't mean to say everyone is hopelessly lost in a mire of localized insanity in the brain but it affects everyone more or less and learning to overcome it is a difficult process that can never be fully accomplished...especially if you convince yourself that those who disagree with you are biased or even insane while also believing you yourself and those who agree with you are not.

posted March 09, 2014 02:10 PM            

quote:

---

You are not the rational person you think yourself to be.

---

The books I read pertaining to thinking would certainly bolster this view. However, what I'm missing from you or anyone else is the explanation as to how I'm irrational.

quote:

---

You need an expert to give you your arguments.

---

Once again, think about what you're saying. What is the alternative? Getting a fool to give me an argument, or making up an argument devoid of any expertly-derived evidence. Given these alternatives, how is what I do irrational?

What's more is that at the very least I give you a means of rational or logical testing of your beliefs. I'm sure that it would be preferable for me to just make unsupported statements, and leave open the possibility that I'm wrong so that we can have equal footing. This is the whole reason that I don't. I do want for you to have equal footing, however. I want for you to be able to cite reasonable explanations for your beliefs. For some reason, in the past you've taken this to mean that I want some volume of evidence, which is not at all what I want. What I want are apples to apples evidence that your view matches the expert view I've provided.

quote:

---

Just admit that Astrology has no scientific basis and that you adhere to an irrational belief.

---

I've already admitted what I'm prepared to admit. I'm not going to comply simply because you instruct it. If you'd like to disprove astrology or have me look at things which purport to do so, I am more than willing to have a look. The research scientist I emailed did email back with a link to a break down of his findings: http://www.astronomy2009.org/resources/presentations/detail/astrologie_IAU2009_eng/ . I'm currently asking him about the criticism of Carlson's work, which compiles various criticisms: http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_23_2_ertel.pdf

quote:

---

You have been a sort of scientific snob around here, so welcome to the other side of the fence.

---

Thanks!

quote:

---

I find that when people say "with all due respect", what they often mean is "you are being ridiculous". It's because what follows such a phrase is always an observation about the innate ways in which the other person is wrong. Because of this it is commonly applied as a master suppression technique to delegitimize what the other is saying, which is why I would be careful to use those words if that is not what you intend.

---

I agree. (Not that I'm affected one way or the other. I just pointed out the dig to ensure that he knew that I knew the point of his writing.)

quote:

---

"With all due respect" means to show respect. I am letting the person know that I am about to levy a criticism while setting a tone absent of contention.

---

quote:

---

The flaw in your reasoning, AG, is that you assume these authority figures are correct, so you unquestioningly accept everything they say and suspend all critical thinking and rationality. You would accept any statements by them as truth no matter how asinine and ludicrous they were. And that is why it's (for you, at least) a religion.

---

I repeatedly ask you to prove your assertions. I repeatedly ask you to prove the experts wrong. I assume my experts are correct because they remain unchallenged in their areas of expertise. That's not to say that there is a dearth of people trying to challenge their findings. It's simply saying that these challenges don't pass scientific muster as evidenced by things like lack of employment in the specified field, or lack of publishing works that materially overturn the known science in the area. If expert witness (appeal to authority) is my litmus test, then there have to be ways of measuring whether one is an expert or not.

quote:

---

And then, in cases where you have no opinion of an authority figure to rely upon, you are deficient in the rationality required to deduce on your own simple conclusions that should be rather easy to infer.

---

Evidence?

quote:

---

Brilliant, PJ!

---

posted March 09, 2014 02:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Brilliant now because that shows people from either side, but when it was one side it was the most BS you've ever seen compacted in one place?

---

posted March 09, 2014 05:40 PM            

Just because there are more papers debunking astrology's scientific reality doesn't mean it's not. As with the global warming debate, scientists don't always agree but that doesn't mean they're liars and frauds, just that the science is not indisputable.

And just because AG is not a scientist doesn't mean his method is "wrong". After all, you refer to spurces too, and I wouldn't call Rush a scientist by any stretch of the imagination.

In fact, Randall, if you didn't reject the warming science out of hand but considered their papers you might have a better argument.