posted March 09, 2014 09:36 PM            

quote:

---

The grandfather of globL warming has admitted the models are off, and laughs at many of the propised solutions...but hestill insists its happening, and in fact believes we're too late to stop it. I do urge you to read James Lovelock, the INDEPENDENt who sees flaws in both sides of the "debate" and sees the hypocrisy too.

---

Well, scientists would tell anyone that models are not the litmus for the basis of the science. What's most useful in making a determination about the climate is measuring climate sensitivity. Part of a model's job is providing a benchmark, so that reality measured against it that doesn't coincide can be investigated, hopefully understood, and then factored into the new models.

quote:

---

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html

---

posted March 09, 2014 09:54 PM            

For several decades, researchers tracked more than 2,000 people — most of them born within minutes of each other. According to astrology, the subjects should have had very similar traits.

The babies were originally recruited as part of a medical study begun in London in 1958 into how the circumstances of birth can affect future health. More than 2,000 babies born in early March that year were registered, and their development was monitored at regular intervals.

Researchers looked at more than 100 different characteristics, including occupation, anxiety levels, marital status, aggressiveness, sociability, IQ levels and ability in art, sports, mathematics and reading — all of which astrologers claim can be gauged from birth charts.

The scientists failed to find any evidence of similarities between the “time twins,” however. They reported in the current issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies: “The test conditions could hardly have been more conducive to success … but the results are uniformly negative.”

Analysis of the research was carried out by Geoffrey Dean, a scientist and former astrologer based in Perth, Australia, and Ivan Kelly, a psychologist at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada.

Mr. Dean said the results undermined the claims of astrologers, who typically work with birth data far less precise than that used in the study. “They sometimes argue that times of birth just a minute apart can make all the difference by altering what they call the ‘house cusps,’” he said. “But in their work, they are happy to take whatever time they can get from a client.”

The findings caused alarm and anger in astrological circles yesterday. Roy Gillett, the president of the Astrological Association of Great Britain, said the study’s findings should be treated “with extreme caution” and accused Mr. Dean of seeking to “discredit astrology.”

Frank McGillion, a consultant to the Southampton-based Research Group for the Critical Study of Astrology, said of the newly published work: “It is simplistic and highly selective and does not cover all of the research.” He added that he would lodge a complaint with the editors of the journal.

Astrologers have for centuries claimed to be able to extract deep insights into the personality and destiny of people using nothing more than the details of the time and place of birth.

Astrology has been growing in popularity. Surveys suggest that a majority of people in Britain believe in it, compared with only 13 percent 50 years ago. The Association of Professional Astrologers claims that 80 percent of Britons read star columns, and psychological studies have found that 60 percent regularly read their horoscopes.

Despite the skepticism of scientists, astrology has grown to be a huge worldwide business, spawning thousands of telephone lines, Internet sites and horoscope columns in newspapers and magazines.

posted March 09, 2014 11:03 PM            

I would personally prefer to get back to the topic of hand in a more productive sense. It was a good and very interesting topic.

...

posted March 10, 2014 01:34 AM            

I do like this Gregory Dean study. Looks far more conclusive, and less suspect than Carlson's. At least on it's face. I did note that birth places weren't mentioned in the article, but upon learning that one of the conductors of the experiment is a former astrologer I can hope to assume that some care was taken. I much more enjoyed the byline in the Telegraph's article: "Good news for rational, level-headed Virgoans everywhere: just as you might have predicted, scientists have found astrology to be rubbish."

I started on the skeptico site, though I haven't read that particular article.

posted March 10, 2014 01:40 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sibyl:
What do you think the best strategies are for countering motivated reasoning and cognitive bias?

---

In others? Not likely to happen, though you can help by trying to frame it from their ideological lens. Plenty of conservatives have slowly accepted gay marriage and drug (at least pot) decriminalization by coming at it from an angle of individual liberty and the free market while still condemning it on moral or religious grounds, and showing how it can actually help (for example, this conservative judge stood up for decriminalizing marijuana for conservative reasons, the free market not being one of them). But you have to try to see things from their point of view rather than dismissing them, you can't just grab them by the throat and expect them to "see reason" (when you're as blind by ego as they are).

Other factors are involved, but I don't want to make this TLDR, and an important reason would quickly get warped out of context if I didn't put a bunch of disclaimers on it so I'm not even going to bother.
x

A most excellent book, and one I'm glad I read is Prometheus Rising, and you'll have to work in unbinding yourself from your own reality tunnel before doing the same for others.

I think it helped me a lot but I still promoted certain ideological views almost with fanaticism (I think that was my Leo ASC, though Sag can encourage that behavior, too, and I have a stellium there, 5H, which is also Leo), and I was sure I could get people to see things my way. I took to trying to understand their PoV so I could come at them from that angle (in short, I wasn't trying to understand them as much as convert them, bad me) and yet it finally sunk into me just how blinding ideology of any sort is and that it didn't matter what it was they were all able to take a common historical incident (like say the Great Depression) and show how their ideology was right (be it liberal or conservative, anarchist or communist, socialist or libertarian). And each PoV made so much sense! But surely they couldn't all be right.

So I took to researching the history from an apolitical PoV and to make a long story short I found that none of them were lying, but rather they focused on what they considered important and overlooked what they considered irrelevant. This was also true of contemporary news, so like I'd read an article of Charter schools in the libertarian Reason magazine and liberal Mother Jones and a very different picture emerged; yet they both included the info from its counterpart, they merely summed up the entire other article in a single paragraph and moved on, so they weren't lying but rather applying their own ideological lens to what they were seeing and pretty much rationalizing their beliefs as much as reasoning. It was like no matter the history or the report, the ideology gave them their context to understand it with very little ability to see beyond it. I began to realize that the world was far more complex with a lot of ambiguity than any single ideology allowed for. Learning how other countries operated just reinforced that observation, too.

posted March 10, 2014 01:52 AM            

Personally I think many people go at it from the wrong perspective. The planets don't make us do anything. Anymore than your home of origin makes you do anything, but is the energy within which you grow and "become" . The choices are yours to make given the raw energetic material/medium in which you find yourself. Twins respond differently to their home, parents, and experiences just as we all do to the energy around us described by the planets and signs.

Just because some scientists devised a study (based on an erroneous idea that the stars make us do or behave a certain way) doesn't mean astrology is unscientific.

And just because some scientists question the global warming doesn't mean they are right. nor are the scientists who put forward the warming theory necessarily right. That doesn't mean warming is not happeningn..nor does it matter if it is manmade or not, if we can do something to curb it that would be great.

posted March 10, 2014 12:00 PM            

On the subject of what is scientific and what is supernatural, how about life after death, multidimensional existence and multiple universes?
http://expandedconsciousness.com/2014/03/09/quantum-theory-proves-that-consciousness-moves-to-another-universe-after-death/

posted March 10, 2014 02:21 PM            

Your flaw, Cat, is that you keep approaching me as if I don't believe in Astrology. I believe in lots of things that are not scientific. Let's take ESP. The world's greatest skeptic, James Randi, has a million dollar cash reward to anyone who can prove better than chance on any psychic test. Many have tried. All have failed. Does that mean all psychics are frauds? Of course not. Perhaps, the sterile environment stifles psychic abilities. Or the immediate presence of skeptics. But that's an irrefutable hypothesis. That makes psychic phenomena untestable. But I still believe. Seeing people defend Astrology with science is laughable--especially from you climate alarmists. Just accept that Astrology is metaphysical. Or do I have to keep throwing in your faces that the real consensus among the scientific community is that Astrology is bunk? It doesn't make it any less real, of course.

posted March 10, 2014 03:21 PM            

quote:

---

And also recognize there are some you can reason with (not to be confused with converting) and those you can't and you have to learn to not waste time with the latter...and be careful not to become one of those who can't be reasoned with in turn.

---

I recognize as much, but still there's a part of me that thinks a change will eventually become inevitable. Maybe not in some cases, because the person is just straight up stubborn, but those that are open to change given enough input I want to start providing that input.

quote:

---

I suspect, as Lovelock says, we will continue to do nothing or the wrong things until the changes are upon us and we have to scramble to do whatever works given the circumstances we will be in. Meanwhile curbing our fossil fuel use for cleaner alternatives, making plastic from hemp instead of oil and byproducts, cleaning up the air and soil, are all good steps to take for our survival and health.

---

quote:

---

We all carry biases, but we are not all trying to convert others by discussing here. Just sharing, comparing and airing our views. Of course how we see things often gets in the way of understanding others but it doesn't need to be us and them even if we disagree...we are all in this together, and not, at the same time.

---

I can admit to trying to convert people on several occasions. I want for people to take some responsibility for themselves that they otherwise refuse to take.

quote:

---

AG, I find you not to be a scientific thinker, because what you know of science, you at least appear to get it from others. You don't seem to be able to make rational deductions on your own.

---

Once again, I disagree with your premise. I've made buttloads of rational deductions here under your observation. You're hanging your theory upon a single instance when a single instance represents an anomaly rather than a prevalence.

quote:

---

For someone who claims to have a scientific mind, you should be able to deduce that Astrology is magical. It should be obvious.

---

Just as the climate is magical?
You're saying that I should take my understanding of scientific principle from someone that proclaims astrology to be magical. What do you propose scientists would say about this course of action?

quote:

---

I would not expect the average person to know these things, but seeing as how you portray yourself as Mr. Science here, it is indeed very shocking that you can even remotely believe that Astrology could be based upon sound scientific principles.

---

I said that astrology was based upon one, single scientific principle, which is observation. Observation is a sound scientific principle as well. I was simply and legitimately pointing out something you apparently failed to take into account as you were talking about the subject. Astrology wasn't just dreamed up one day. It took observing the heavens as well as observing people. That's what I was saying. I wasn't making some grand gesture towards defending astrology scientifically.

quote:

---

It's not about you not being open to investigate it, AG. It's the fact that you thought it was scientific.

---

Both of these pronouncements baffled me until I reread the thread and found that single reference I mention about of my deeming it in some way based upon a very basic scientific principle.

quote:

---

This explains why you defer to authority figures to shape your world schema.

---

Oh...so you're putting this forth to yourself in order to come to a hypothesis? I've already explained the problem with the hypothesis. You should deal with that.

quote:

---

But the total sum of your understanding of science comes unquestioningly from sources which you imbue with higher wisdom.

---

I wouldn't personally designate it as "higher wisdom." I would designate it as an entity that measures and performs observations. Such an entity is better suited to answer questions about such measurements and observations than a person removed from that practice, right?

quote:

---

In your unnecessary investigation, I hope you finally see what the science says concerning Astrology, though I fear you will still not see how you lack a certain grasp of those principles, because you depend upon someone else to instruct you in them before you can rationalize and form your opinion.

---

I don't. This is just the latest attempt by you to paint a picture of me that isn't met by reality. Who am I conferring with right now in disagreeing with your assessment of things? What expert is holding my hand in undoing your argument? I think, and I'm probably biased here, that I can ascertain a problem in someone's thinking with more efficiency than most people. That's step one in my responding to any matter of debate. Granted, there effectively are teachers of the information contained in my brain that helped in forming an opinion as to whether a person is speaking from a perspective that is rationally defensible or not. The synthesis of the information happens in my brain, though. If your premise were true, I'd have to cut and paste any and all posts, and present them to some authority before being able to come back with an assessment of the information contained within those posts. For this reason, your postulate is observably wrong.

My ability to address your thinking in this area illustrates my particular forte: illuminating the improper basis of particular thoughts. You don't have a defense for imagining such things about me, and yet you persist. I point out the flaw in your thinking, and you persist. You haven't even attempted to reconcile the problems I've already pointed out in your premise to you.

• You didn't address why taking the best information available was wrong.
  
• You failed to account for the reason I consider some people authorities, and others not.
  
• You didn't address the alternatives to expert witness I presented.
  
• You didn't address the defect in your own climate argument, which I laid out for you in clear terms.
  
• You've thus far ignored or otherwise tried to diminish my own scrutiny of astrology, because it's inconvenient to your case
  
• You didn't address that this conversation seems to be about trying to level the playing field, because I approach things in a different way than you do.
  
• You haven't responded to my request for evidence that in cases where no expert opinion is available that I have difficulty deducing conclusions. (Where it seems you'll accept conclusions like, "It's magic," over conclusions like, "I'm investigating." )
  
• Along the lines of things already in this list, you've failed to give a reasonable account for why seeking other sources of information is illogical or irrational
  
• You didn't address the logical inconsistency in believing an investigation into astrology was less scientific than, I guess, the totally scientific route of just calling it magic.

I think this campaign is just a more evolved iteration of Jwhop's attempts at labeling me as something I'm observably not (in addition to the attempt to level the playing field).

quote:

---

I repeat, Randall, you get your info from"sources" too. AG never said he was a as scientist, did he? You took your lead from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, no scientist at all.

---

A fair point, which I have also stated from time to time (to no avail).

quote:

---

It is unscientific to say that something is unscientific because the current science has not accepted it yet.

---

I noticed a reference to intuition as I was recapping the thread. There is actually some science behind intuition. In my book, Thinking Fast & Slow, intuition would simply be the fast, reactive manner of thinking that comes automatically that supplants the more rational, deliberate, and slower thinking.

Still, I have thought about things such as really any study that simply draws up an interesting observation that is otherwise unexplained or has to be rationalized in order to even come up with a theory as to why.

quote:

---

Or do I have to keep throwing in your faces that the real consensus among the scientific community is that Astrology is bunk?

---

posted March 10, 2014 04:16 PM            

I admit freely to having been carried away with frustration when dealing with certain people on here, and as PJ points out, it is an occupational hazard that if we aren'r careful we start to become the people we are locking horns with. I am not so vain as to think I am always above bias or these pitfalls, even though this is exactly what I am trying to point out in specifics the majority of the time.

posted March 10, 2014 08:55 PM            

I still keep to my assertion that you are not a scientific/rational thinker. You write well. You synthesize information very well. Your research skills are great. But all you really do is regurgitate info from other sources. When faced with making a rational deduction on your own with no info to lean on, you fail miserably. You are still trying link the tenets of Asrology with science, which shows that you have no fundamental understanding of scientific principles. Why do you need an authority to tell you what to believe? Think rationally of your own accord in this case. It should be clear that Astrology (if scientific) would betray the laws of physics. It's not rocket science.

Scientists do observe. But not all observation is science! Observe what? The ancients who formed the basis of Astrology observed many things. They observed that: The Earth is the center of the universe. The Sun revolves around the Earth, as do the other Planets. And the constellations look like animals and other creatures.

Not magical? So, Planets having the human characteristics of gods (and their assorted myths) doesn't sound magical to you? Seriously?

Jung explains Astrology well to me, but these subconscious archetypes are not science.

posted March 10, 2014 10:06 PM            

quote:

---

You are still trying link the tenets of Asrology with science, which shows that you have no fundamental understanding of scientific principles.

---

Do you disagree with my comment that astrology was based upon observation originally? That's the only scientific link I've given you to go on. I think you're trying to make me out as having defended astrology scientifically to a greater extent than I really have.

quote:

---

Why do you need an authority to tell you what to believe?

---

I don't.
How many times have I called people out for not justifying their claims around here? Why do I do that?
I've done it a lot, because some people seem to believe that they are an authority unto themselves. That is false. If you can't rationally prove something, then chances are you don't have a very good grip on the subject.
What would be a reasonable way of establishing an adherence to reality? You can establish the basis of the truth you are outlining via external means, and you can cite people that can reasonably be deemed experts in the field. In doing so, you prove the authority that you're basing your opinion on rather than just spouting off at the mouth in a way that might reasonably be thought to convey a false sense of authority. (This is also the prescription for writing an informational article about anything.)
To reiterate, I intentionally remove myself from the equation in hopes that believers won't judge information based upon the deliverer of that information, but upon the sound source of that information.
You can think yourself better than me all you want whether rationally or irrationally, but you don't really have reason to believe yourself better than an expert that lives and breathes the topic of discussion.

quote:

---

Think rationally of your own accord in this case. It should be clear that Astrology (if scientific) would betray the laws of physics. It's not rocket science.

---

When did I make the case that astrology fit into the laws of physics?

quote:

---

Scientists do observe. But not all observation is science!

---

Looks like I spoke too soon. You DO get it! Bravo!

quote:

---

Not magical? So, Planets having the human characteristics of gods (and their assorted myths) doesn't sound magical to you? Seriously?

---

Yes, that does sound magical, but is does something being magical constitute science? And by that I specifically mean that you characterized yourself as having a better grasp of science based upon the fact that you deemed astrology magical.

quote:

---

We don't recall when were wrong, and we overly emphasize the times when we were right,

---

posted March 10, 2014 10:13 PM            

Our own historical development is not that of a science.
Astrology does not yield objective truth.
Its conclusions are context-dependent, inconsistent from one context to the next and not verifiable by research demanding consensus and replicability.
Its conclusions are derived through a wide range of diverse techniques and approaches to astrology that differ widely from astrologer to astrologer.
Its conclusions are derived, not through empirical observation alone, but through the participation of subject and object in a mutual dialogue.
Its conclusions assume the possibility of meaning and purpose, while science disavows these possibilities and is not prepared to discuss them.
Astrology ascribes a qualitative dimension to time, which is not acknowledged by science.
Astrology has no cogent, testable mechanism to explain how it works; nor has any such theory ever been tested by the rigorous standards demanded by science.

posted March 10, 2014 11:25 PM            

Now, conversely, there is no reasoning through climate science...at least not on your part. You haven't endeavored to do it, so you haven't been able to do it.

quote:

---

And I am a bit shocked that you thought (think?) Astrology is based on science. That notion is so absurd in the extreme that it should be glaringly obvious to the empirically-thinking individual.

---

When, exactly, did I say that astrology was based on science? You keep putting this forward, but there's no evidence.

quote:

---

You also seem to be too close to the subject to be impartial, because of the (unscientific) validity and verification you receive from those you interact with and advise.

---

That's not an objective analysis, for after having given my reason to trust it, my action was to go ahead and investigate it. You're projecting a narrative upon me that is divorced from the evidence your own eyes have given you.