The Moon and volcanic eruptions
Edmond Wollmann
> Roger L. Satterlee (peda...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> > Yeah, Michael,
> > I heard about this the other day on TV (the discovery channel, I
> > think. The persons whose names I cannot recall were in Peurto Rico
> > watching eruptions and comparing to the timing to the 6 1/4 hour
> > schedule of the tides. One day they, "half as a joke", they predicted
> > a big erution at 12:30, and it came at 12:28. This caused the
> > researchers to go back into the history of major erutions like Pele in
> > Matinique, 1902, and these events did coincide with the time of the
> > Moon's maximum tidal effect. He also mentioned that astronomers were
> > much more accepting of such a premise than geologists...who, as a
> > group, are about as conservative as the rocks they identify with...:)
But there ARE geologic causes for volcanic eruptions, therefore they are
the most qualified to weigh evidence.
> > Rog
> I would think that the same theory holds true for earthquakes, and I have heard
> something like it. But I also suspect it might make a difference whether we're
> talking about an area where there are regular eruptions or tremors versus much
> less frequent eruptions or tremors. That is, if there is an almost constant
> volcanic or seismic activity, then cyclic peaks in the activity might be seen
> which follow the Lunar phase or cycle.
Seismic activity is almost everywhere all the time.
> Michael Rideout
If you astrologers want to talk as if astrology is a science, then you
will need to list all variables in an idea like this, so that when they
are run through a stats program we can then measure the variables
strength and significance as a part of the equation, otherwise you look
rather foolish jumpiong to conclusions as to what other astrological
configurations may "cause what" re: Volcanic eruptions.
What are the OTHER causes and what are their strengths?
For anyone thinking of testing astrology;
It would be very instructive in this regard to know just what you
believe astrology to be first. Also..
Since theories determine what we observe;
1) What is your motive for the test?
2) What are your qualifications to do research?
3) Will you be able to operationalize the issues before testing?
4) What are your astrological qualifications?
5) Where will the results be published?
Here are some considerations we would need to consider to create a
strong experiment in astrology;
First in ANY test or scientific research it is assumed that
understanding is TENTATIVE. Skeptical is the perspective that perfect
knowledge is not possible.
Observational studies have the ability to be more generalizable and
natural but have little control over lurking variables. Sample surveys
is one kind.
Experiments deliberately impose treatment or change in order to observe
effects, are more controlled and allow for causal statements (if met by
conditions outlined below).
But experiments are more clinical, not natural, isolated, and may lessen
real world application.
Here are other rules and considerations;
1) The use of an unbiased sampling method. In this case because we may
be measuring categorical variables they would need to be SRS.
2) Minimizing the variables that differ between groups EXCEPT the
explanatory variable. Astrology has 5.393707075 x 10 58th factors to
measure (minimum). Not counting psychology and free will factors-thats
a lot of lurking variables. If you are measuring astrology and not
sunsign newspaper trash.
3) Maximizing the difference between groups on explanatory variable.
4) How will you impose random assignments, produce replication, block
for sex differences and deal with an unbelievable variety of categorical
variables?
5) Did we control for demand characteristics? (that individuals are
unable to figure out the meaning of the test).
6) What are the limits of veridicality?
7) Is the causation internal and subjective or external and objective?
8) what are the prevailing factors at time of testing that may determine
locus of causation?
9) Is there a functional attribution error probability on the part of
the experimenter? Observational bias?
In order to make causal statements with regard to correlations one must
have;
1) Cause must precede effect.
2) Cause and effect must co-vary.
3) All other possible explanations between cause and effect must be
ruled out.
Correlations do not imply explanation. A correlation is a QUANTITATIVE
description of the strength and direction of the two variables. Most
astrological interpretations are QUALITATIVE. Most behavioral studies
are observational and more natural.
Correlations are greatly affected by outliers (anomaly). Outliers makes
predictions less accurate.
Inferential statistic=based on PROBABILITY, which is all one will
get-not "proof." It compares what would happen by chance if only done
once as compared to what would be results over many or time. We simply
get statements of the HO (the null hypothesis) being false in degrees of
probability. Hence we disproved in degrees that the Earth was flat-never
PROVED it was round.
A statistic=is any number which describes a sample.
A Parameter=any number which describes a population.
Variability-the greater the spread (measured on a histogram).
The acceptable cutoff for alpha is .05 in tests of significance.
Which aspects of astrology can be tested as categorical variables and
which as quantitative?
Is there Simpson's paradox at work? As in the case of quantitative
variables, the effects of lurking variables can change or even reverse
relationships between two categorical variables. (The Basic Practice of
Statistics, 1995, David S. Moore, page 157).
The scientific method involves and incorporates;
1) Empirical verification.
2) Operational definition.
3) Controlled observation.
4) Statistical generalization and empirical confirmation.
Unless you have operationally defined astrology properly, you are
wasting time with all of the above.
Woodenheaded thinking="assessing a situation in terms of preconceived
fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs" (Tuchman,
1984, p. 7).
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. arctur...@earthlink.net (remove-)
© 2002 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/
first_spammer
> If you astrologers want to talk as if astrology is a science, then you
> will need to list all variables in an idea like this, so that when they
> are run through a stats program we can then measure the variables
> strength and significance as a part of the equation, otherwise you look
> rather foolish jumpiong to conclusions as to what other astrological
> configurations may "cause what" re: Volcanic eruptions.
> What are the OTHER causes and what are their strengths?
So, you claim that an astrology based on imperfect science is
somehow inferior to an astrology based on nothing at all but
wishful longing, as yours is?
> Since theories determine what we observe;
False premise-punctuation abuser. All that follows is worthless.
> 1) What is your motive for the test?
Irrelevant.
> 2) What are your qualifications to do research?
If the research is useful, the person was qualified.
> 3) Will you be able to operationalize the issues before testing?
Meaningless kook-babble.
> 4) What are your astrological qualifications?
Not important. In fact a researcher who knows nothing about
astrology would probably be more likely to arrive at the truth.
> 5) Where will the results be published?
Depends on the research. If it's good enough, possibly in a
peer-reviewed journal. If it's extraordinarily crappy, it would
probably be self-published by "Altair Publications".
> Here are some considerations we would need to consider to create a
> strong experiment in astrology;
Nobody needs you to make rules on how astrology research must be
conducted-punctuation abuser.
> Here are other rules and considerations;
<snip meaningless rules for kooks, by kooks>
> Astrology has 5.393707075 x 10 58th factors to
> measure (minimum).
That's absurd. Astrology can have no more than 10^29 factors.
> Not counting psychology and free will factors-thats
> a lot of lurking variables. If you are measuring astrology and not
> sunsign newspaper trash.
Why do you think experimental astrology would have any connection
with psychology whatsoever? We're talking science here, using
easily quantifiable variables. Not some kind of fuzzy-headed mush
that you can't even get a degree in anyway.
Your delusion that you are in some way competent to comment on
what astrology is, let alone what science is, only confirms your
addle-pated, logically-challenged state of mindlessness.
Christ, you can't even punctuate a sentence. And you're going to
tell everyone how scientific investigations have to be conducted?
Sheesh.
Patrick Shea
First wrote:
There was a Korean response to this poast which disagreed with it, but
it got disqualified, so I win the Gold for agreeing with this poast.
>