| 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 |
 |
|
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 |
|
 |
mattG
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 345
Location: Greenwich UK
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
dmause
Joined: 14 Sep 2010
Posts: 78
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
dmause
Joined: 14 Sep 2010
Posts: 78
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
mattG
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 345
Location: Greenwich UK
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Martin Lewicki
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Mike N
Joined: 20 Sep 2010
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:54 am Post subject: Re: Interview with researchers |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
dmause
Joined: 14 Sep 2010
Posts: 78
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:50 am Post subject: Re: Interview with researchers |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Mike N
Joined: 20 Sep 2010
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
dmause
Joined: 14 Sep 2010
Posts: 78
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Mike N
Joined: 20 Sep 2010
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[/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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmause
Joined: 14 Sep 2010
Posts: 78
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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? |
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 |
|
|
Mike N
Joined: 20 Sep 2010
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 Leo’s spend on presents over a 2 year period (as a proportion of their income) and compare this to a randomly selected sample of non Leo’s.
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 |
|
|
GarryP
Moderator
Joined: 23 Oct 2003
Posts: 206
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
mattG
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 345
Location: Greenwich UK
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
Skyscript on Facebook