skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Book III of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree
Notes on Dorotheus III: the haylāj, Kadhkhudāh, and terms of life
by Deborah Houlding
Godfather of Modernity: The Alan Leo Legacy Vol. One - Early Astrological Journals 1890-1912, compiled by Philip M Graves
Reviewed by Deborah Houlding
Lilly's Considerations
compiled by D. Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Interview with researchers
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
dmause



Joined: 14 Sep 2010
Posts: 78

Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 6:33 pm    Post subject: Interview with researchers Reply with quote

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?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mattG



Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 345
Location: Greenwich UK

Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
dmause



Joined: 14 Sep 2010
Posts: 78

Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmause



Joined: 14 Sep 2010
Posts: 78

Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mattG



Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 345
Location: Greenwich UK

Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Martin Lewicki



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 46

Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mike N



Joined: 20 Sep 2010
Posts: 49

Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:54 am    Post subject: Re: Interview with researchers Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmause



Joined: 14 Sep 2010
Posts: 78

Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:50 am    Post subject: Re: Interview with researchers Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike N



Joined: 20 Sep 2010
Posts: 49

Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmause



Joined: 14 Sep 2010
Posts: 78

Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike N



Joined: 20 Sep 2010
Posts: 49

Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[/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 itís 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?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmause



Joined: 14 Sep 2010
Posts: 78

Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
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 itís 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...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike N



Joined: 20 Sep 2010
Posts: 49

Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I agree. We tend to universalize our traits: " Leos are generous?.Isn`t everyone". My answer is : No


Ah but your perceptions, and mine, are of course largely irrelevant.

What a critical thinker would say is, for example, we will measure what a hundred Leoís spend on presents over a 2 year period (as a proportion of their income) and compare this to a randomly selected sample of non Leoís.

For some astrologers there are all sorts of problems with this as they might argue your average Capricorn is likely to spend more than the average Leo as buying expensive presents increases their 'status' in the eyes of others and so on. The idea here being that although Leo's are more inclined to be generous, are more subjectively generous, feel more generous, etc this may not reliably manifest in their measurable overt behaviour. Thus we get into the realms of non falsifiable claims.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GarryP
Moderator


Joined: 23 Oct 2003
Posts: 207
Location: UK

Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I felt I should perhaps chip in, since I was the interviewer. That interview - also posted on my site at www.astrozero.co.uk/astroscience/research.htm- was conducted for my book Astrology in the Year Zero, where a shorter version of the interview was part of a broad discussion of astrology's nature.

Dennis Elwell objected to the arguments of Dean et al, and a series of exchanges ensued between them which can be found here:

www.astrozero.co.uk/astroscience/elres.htm

Geoffrey Cornelius makes several references to the interview in the second edition of The Moment of Astrology, and more generally presents a very rich and interesting perspective on the whole question of what astrology is.

And there's some more from me on that question in a couple of articles:

www.astrozero.co.uk/articles/Doubt.htm

www.astrozero.co.uk/articles/modern_science.htm

I hope some of that will be of interest!
Garry
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mattG



Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 345
Location: Greenwich UK

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you Garry for chipping in and providing us the relevant links.

I had previously missed your Doubt article but I am glad I came across it at last as it has helped my understanding of the question.

Regards

Matt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated