Astrology discussion at a skeptic's blog

[Apollia]

Hi everyone.

Off and on, I've been hanging out discussing astrology at one of
my favorite blogs, http://skeptico.blogs.com/ .

And I signed up for an astrological challenge (which I still
have to get around to actually working on), and I thought maybe
some of you folks might enjoy the discussion as well, and might
like to add to the discussion, and maybe even attempt the
challenge too.

Here's the gigantic thread with the challenges:
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2006/09/astrology_rebut.html

The above thread is closed now, because there's now a more
recent astrology post, where comments (even related to the
old thread) can go:

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/06/testing-astrolo.html

----

Apollia My website: http://www.astroblahhh.com/

Birth data: -qa July 3 1981 12:50 EDT 79:59W 40:26N (Pittsburgh, PA)

[DJ]

I find these things to be a complete waste of time. A "scientist"
posits a test designed to prove what he or she wants, introduces a few
fudge factors to muck up the results if they prove a surprise, and
"proves" something either 1) obvious, 2) inconsequential, or 3)
idiotic. Many years ago, I heard a "study" that suggested that dating
men was insanely dangerous; when I analyzed the details I realized
that some female had called 17 of her friends (17 or a multiple of 17
is a perfect number to use for a "study", since the percentages come
out uneven; "21.764589%" sounds like you interviewed 17,000 people;
it's oh-so-much more believable than "20%" or even "19.66666%"), asked
them a nebulous, inflammatory, ambiguous question (something like
"have you ever felt threatened or intimidated by anything a man has
said or done to you in a social situation?"), and came up with the
result she wanted (about 58.635436% of all women had at some time
"felt threatened"). Recently, I heard of a study that "proved"
marijuana responsible for schizophrenia; the actual data showed a 40%
increase in something which affects approximately 0.01% of the
population; thus the relevant percentage isn't "40%", or the 2 out of
5 which was trumpeted, it's actually "0.004%", 2 out of 5000, which
sounds like, and is, vanishingly small. "Scientific" studies,
"inconclusive" results. What else is new?

~DJ
-------

[Ms.Maleficent]

"DJ" <doovi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186284606.4...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

>I find these things to be a complete waste of time. A "scientist"
> posits a test designed to prove what he or she wants, introduces a few
> fudge factors to muck up the results if they prove a surprise, and
> "proves" something either 1) obvious, 2) inconsequential, or 3)
> idiotic. Many years ago, I heard a "study" that suggested that dating
> men was insanely dangerous; when I analyzed the details I realized
> that some female had called 17 of her friends (17 or a multiple of 17
> is a perfect number to use for a "study", since the percentages come
> out uneven; "21.764589%" sounds like you interviewed 17,000 people;
> it's oh-so-much more believable than "20%" or even "19.66666%"), asked
> them a nebulous, inflammatory, ambiguous question (something like
> "have you ever felt threatened or intimidated by anything a man has
> said or done to you in a social situation?"), and came up with the
> result she wanted (about 58.635436% of all women had at some time
> "felt threatened"). Recently, I heard of a study that "proved"
> marijuana responsible for schizophrenia; the actual data showed a 40%
> increase in something which affects approximately 0.01% of the
> population; thus the relevant percentage isn't "40%", or the 2 out of
> 5 which was trumpeted, it's actually "0.004%", 2 out of 5000, which
> sounds like, and is, vanishingly small. "Scientific" studies,
> "inconclusive" results. What else is new?
>
> ~DJ

Not to mention the fact that these so-called "skeptics" are nothing of the
sort. They are dedicated to "debunking" anything and everything that does
not fit into the current scientific mold, and NEVER approach anythiong like
astrology, or psychic phenomenon or even psychology with an open mind. They
have drawn their conclusions before any "test" is ever done.

[Pedantus]

DJ wrote:
> I find these things to be a complete waste of time. A "scientist"
> posits a test designed to prove what he or she wants, introduces a few
> fudge factors to muck up the results if they prove a surprise, and
> "proves" something either 1) obvious, 2) inconsequential, or 3)
> idiotic. Many years ago, I heard a "study" that suggested that dating
> men was insanely dangerous; when I analyzed the details I realized
> that some female had called 17 of her friends (17 or a multiple of 17
> is a perfect number to use for a "study", since the percentages come
> out uneven; "21.764589%" sounds like you interviewed 17,000 people;
> it's oh-so-much more believable than "20%" or even "19.66666%"), asked
> them a nebulous, inflammatory, ambiguous question (something like
> "have you ever felt threatened or intimidated by anything a man has
> said or done to you in a social situation?"), and came up with the
> result she wanted (about 58.635436% of all women had at some time
> "felt threatened"). Recently, I heard of a study that "proved"
> marijuana responsible for schizophrenia; the actual data showed a 40%
> increase in something which affects approximately 0.01% of the
> population; thus the relevant percentage isn't "40%", or the 2 out of
> 5 which was trumpeted, it's actually "0.004%", 2 out of 5000, which
> sounds like, and is, vanishingly small. "Scientific" studies,
> "inconclusive" results. What else is new?
>
> ~DJ
> -------

There are only two potheads in my family, and they both swear that it
has *nothing* to do with their schizophrenia.....:)