2
No and the link doesn't work.

What I will say is that if you see the word "debunking" you should question the research. It suggests that someone has already taken the view that astrology is bunk so any further research will tend to support that initial prejudice.

I am led to believe that in academic circles any serious study of astrology is discouraged so all you see is the work of these "debunkers"

The best method is to study astrology,apply the rules and see the results working in practice (IMHO)

Matt

3
matt23z wrote:No and the link doesn't work.

What I will say is that if you see the word "debunking" you should question the research. It suggests that someone has already taken the view that astrology is bunk so any further research will tend to support that initial prejudice.

I am led to believe that in academic circles any serious study of astrology is discouraged so all you see is the work of these "debunkers"

The best method is to study astrology,apply the rules and see the results working in practice (IMHO)

Matt
http://www.astrology-and-science.com/hpage.htm

Try now. It`s the link "Philipson interview with researchers".

Allegedly they used to be Astrologers ( Dean,Smit,Ertel ) so they were friendly towards Astrology. They didn`t use the word "debunk", I did

4
matt23z wrote:No and the link doesn't work.

What I will say is that if you see the word "debunking" you should question the research. It suggests that someone has already taken the view that astrology is bunk so any further research will tend to support that initial prejudice.

I am led to believe that in academic circles any serious study of astrology is discouraged so all you see is the work of these "debunkers"

The best method is to study astrology,apply the rules and see the results working in practice (IMHO)

Matt
A good place to test astrological claims is www.astrotheme.fr
Ex: I found a large number of people with Uranus on the IC whose parents parted or moved home early in life. I myself did.
You can check famous people with "uranus in 4" for example or any other planet.
However moves are pretty common in the US so I`m not sure it`s an Astrological influence

5
I do now recognise the article and I believe that it created some debate at the time. It was before I started but it might be interesting to look back on it all now. I wonder if it had any influence or not.

Thank you for the tip about astrotheme. I will try it out
Regards

Matt

6
dmause wrote: Allegedly they used to be Astrologers ( Dean,Smit,Ertel ) so they were friendly towards Astrology. They didn`t use the word "debunk", I did
The allegation is true. I knew Dean and Smit both Australia back in the 70's and 80's. They read charts and clients paid them money.

Martin

Re: Interview with researchers

8
Mike N wrote:
dmause wrote:http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/d-phil2.htm

I`m intrigued by this interview with researchers who claim to have debunked Astrology. They make good points.
Do you know anything about this research?
Was there a particular piece of 'research' you were interested in discussing as there is a lot of information here.
I don`t know the research in detail.
It`s all the talk about hidden persuaders abd lack of critical thinking in Astrologers , the fact that anything goes in astrology, that begs for questions

9
This 'research' has been around for some time. If I recall correctly certain astrologers difficulties in evidencing their claims resulted in a shift towards seeing the practice as less ''real'' than it was hoped it was, or claimed to be, 30 or so years ago. This is a very general and loose synopsis.

Regarding critical thinking the Uranus in the 4th idea would need a sample size of a good few thousand and then the requisite replications to see if this notion had any foundations. This of course is one of the main criticisms of astrologers their tendency to seeing what they want to see. Of course it may be Uranus in the 4th results in more domestic upheavals. This kind of large scale analysis hasn't, to my knowledge, happened all that often.

Astrology is considerably closer to religion than science and as such is somewhat non falsifiable. I think most astrologers are well aware of this.

10
Mike N wrote:This 'research' has been around for some time. If I recall correctly certain astrologers difficulties in evidencing their claims resulted in a shift towards seeing the practice as less ''real'' than it was hoped it was, or claimed to be, 30 or so years ago. This is a very general and loose synopsis.

Regarding critical thinking the Uranus in the 4th idea would need a sample size of a good few thousand and then the requisite replications to see if this notion had any foundations. This of course is one of the main criticisms of astrologers their tendency to seeing what they want to see. Of course it may be Uranus in the 4th results in more domestic upheavals. This kind of large scale analysis hasn't, to my knowledge, happened all that often.

Astrology is considerably closer to religion than science and as such is somewhat non falsifiable. I think most astrologers are well aware of this.
But if it`s non-falsifiable isn`t it a bit like testing a negative?
If it`s non falsifiable how did Astrologers come to the conclusions and claims they`ve been making,like Ptolemy and others?

11
[/quote]But if it`s non-falsifiable isn`t it a bit like testing a negative?
If it`s non falsifiable how did Astrologers come to the conclusions and claims they`ve been making,like Ptolemy and others[quote]


Astrologers don't tend to put themselves forward for testing and to be fair the academic establishment hasn't to date been all that inclined to spend a lot of time and energy asking them to.

As to 'conclusions' well people believe in all sorts of things that aren't necessarily true, don't they? The researchers do point to a couple of pieces of evidence which are harder to ignore so it?s not as though it's all negative reading for (some) astrologers!

I think that the Leos I've met tend to be more generous (whatever this means) than say the Librans I've encountered thus far but how would I prove this is a whole different ball game, have you any ideas on how this perception, or any other, could be rigorously assessed?

12
Mike N wrote:
But if it`s non-falsifiable isn`t it a bit like testing a negative?
If it`s non falsifiable how did Astrologers come to the conclusions and claims they`ve been making,like Ptolemy and others


Astrologers don't tend to put themselves forward for testing and to be fair the academic establishment hasn't to date been all that inclined to spend a lot of time and energy asking them to.

As to 'conclusions' well people believe in all sorts of things that aren't necessarily true, don't they? The researchers do point to a couple of pieces of evidence which are harder to ignore so it?s not as though it's all negative reading for (some) astrologers!

I think that the Leos I've met tend to be more generous (whatever this means) than say the Librans I've encountered thus far but how would I prove this is a whole different ball game, have you any ideas on how this perception, or any other, could be rigorously assessed?
I agree. We tend to universalize our traits: " Leos are generous?.Isn`t everyone". My answer is : No

Capricorn is ambitious.Isn`t everybody? No, some people are pretty happy leading a modest life
And so on...