Astrology debunking in the classroom.

[John E. Sohl]

I have sent a similar message to James Randi, but would like any other
input that I can get.
I am teaching an Honors class on science and society. This quarter I am
including a section on pseudoscience, actually, about 3 weeks will be spent on
that topic.
I once saw a TV program with James Randi in it where he passed out
"personalized" astrological readings to each person in the audience. They
mostly agreed that the results matched their lives well then he had them
exchange the pages and went on to explain why it didn't work. My recollection
of the details is fairly fuzzy.
I would like to do this in my class. So, I have a few questions:

1) Is it better to use a "generic" astrological reading, or to choose one
"actually" based on some real person's birth data? (E.g. Adolf Hitler, Charles
Manson, etc.)

2) Does anyone have an "e-mailable" copy of such a reading that you could
send to me?

3) Any references? (My knowledge of astrology is somewhat weak I must
admit.) I have found a few related articles in Skeptical Eniqurer and in Sky
and Telescope.

Thank you for any help you can provide. I'm looking forward to this
presentation. I have one "born again Christian" who refused to give me her
birth information because her religion says that astrology is the work of the
Satan and as such she is not allowed to participate in such excercises. I'm
curious to see her reaction to the rest of the class on this one. :-)

I once ran a program in my planetarium, "Astrology: Fact of Fiction?"
which got some pretty strong responses. I will try to run that show for this
class too. I'm open to any suggestions.

Thanks again,

John Sohl, Associate Professor of Physics
Director, Layton P. Ott Planetarium
Weber State University, Ogden, Utah, USA 84408-2508
voice: (801) 626-7907 FAX: (801) 626-7445
JS...@CC.WEBER.EDU or on Bitnet: SOHL@OHSTPY

[Thaddeus M Cowan]

On Tue, 8 Nov 1994, John E. Sohl wrote:

> I once saw a TV program with James Randi in it where he passed out
> "personalized" astrological readings to each person in the audience. They
> mostly agreed that the results matched their lives well then he had them
> exchange the pages and went on to explain why it didn't work. My recollection
> of the details is fairly fuzzy.
> I would like to do this in my class.

We've done this for years in our class "Experimental methods in
psychology." However, we put it in a slightly different framework. We
give the students a "personality inventory." This can take any form form
drawing a picture of yourself to a set of bogus multiple choice questions
("Do you prefer cats over dogs?" "Do you make eye contact with people as
they pass you in a narrow hallway?" etc.) The next class (after "scoring
the test and taking great pains to interpret it properly"), you give
them a stock reply taken from any astrological reading. All the students
get exactly the same reply. This works quite well and it will get you by the
student who thinks astrology is the work of the devil. (I also think astrology
is the work of the devil but the earth-bound variety.)

Thad Cowan

[TICE, MICHAEL]

As it so happens, I did such an 'experiment' about a month ago with my
students in an introductory Physics for non-majors class here at UCLA. The
class is made up of about 80% Psychology majors, so I thought it would be of
particular value for them to see how the subjects' expectations and the test's
wording can influence the testing.

I followed very closely the experiment done by C.R. Snyder from the Journal
of Clinical Psychology 1974 (30) around page 576.

The test horoscope is made of snippets from Linda Goodman's _Sun Signs_
reproduced here:

"You have a very practical bent and enjoy earning money, but sometimes your
deep desire to be a creative person triumphs over your practicality. You lead
other people with your innovative ideas, or could do this if you felt more
sure of yourself. Insecurity is your greatest weakness, and you would be wise
to try to overcome this. Your deep sense of humor and warm, understanding
nature wins you true friends, and although they may not be numerous, you share
a rather intense loyalty to each other. With your innovative mind, you rebel
against authority, either inwardly or openly. Even though you could make a
stable businessman, you would be a very idealistic one, finding it hard not to
defend the underdog or try to settle arguments that arise. You like to think
of yourself as unprejudiced, but periodically examine yourself to make sure
you aren't overlooking some harmful judgments. You will live a long, full
life if you take care of yourself. You love to have freedom in whatever
you're doing, and this makes you dislike monotonous tasks and being in large
crowds where you can't seem to move freely. If someone pays you a
well-deserved compliment, you enjoy hearing it, but you may not show that you
do. Sometimes you find that the actions you take do not accomplish as much as
you'd like them to, especially in dealing with people. You have a real grasp
on how people are feeling or waht they are thinking without their necessarily
telling you."

Since I wasn't going to try to publish this, I was pretty loose in my
experiment. For my 'control', I used the e-mail list of the UCLA science
fiction club. They were told that the above statement was written 'by
psychologists who have studied human nature and determined that these
statements are generally true of most people' or something to that effect. On
a 1 to 5 scale (5 = the statement describes me accurately, but not necessarily
fully), the average was 3.15

My students were told that it was a horoscope based on their birthday, which
I had collected the previous week. Their average was 3.8, significantly
higher on a five point scale.

In my presentation, I kept my deception alive for quite a while. I express
shock and dismay that the 'horoscope' matched people's personalities better
than my 'control'. I hem, haw and drill my shoe point into the ground -- "I
guess we seem to have proved that astrology has some scientific validity."

[Several smug expressions in the audience]

"But," say I, "let us do one more control. Everyone switch horoscopes so
that you get a random one that bears no .... "

[papers rustle. groans, giggles and exclamations. smug expressions
evaporate]

I barely restrain myself from doing a victory lap, and rubbing it in to the
ex-smug people. After all, I'm a scientist. Instead, I explain how the
*only* difference between the control and the 'horoscope' was the wording of
the question.

As far as using an 'authentic' Hitler horoscope, I think that could add an
extra ZING to the end of the experiment. If you can find one specific to his
year (nay, the very *hour*) of his birth, then that would be one last nail in
astrology's coffin. (Unless, of course, the horoscope says stuff about
annexing the Sudetenland and invading Poland)

--Mike

PS If anyone wants to argue about my shoddy experimental technique... well,
that's why I'm a theorist.

[Ben Murphey]

Many thanks to Thad Cowan for a great way to get students to
question some of their undisciplined beliefs... I'm not
a "real" teacher, but I do volunteer tutoring for high
school kids...I'm going to tell the real teachers about his
Exp. Psych. drill: to wit,

<stuff_deleted>

> We've done this for years in our class "Experimental methods in
> psychology." However, we put it in a slightly different framework. We
> give the students a "personality inventory." This can take any form

<more_stuff_deleted>

> This works quite well and it will get you by the
> student who thinks astrology is the work of the devil. (I also think astrology
> is the work of the devil but the earth-bound variety.)

This last remark reminds me of one of my favorite Richard Mitchell (of
Underground Grammarian fame) quotes... while taking issue with Martin Luther's
famous assertion that "Reason is the Devil's Whore", Mitchell said,
"Reason is not the Devil's Whore; it is the Whore's Devil".

Enjoy the weekend, y'all,

Ben Murphey
Houston, TX