Apologetics of Astrology, TaroT and I Ching

[Chrs]

Okay . . . well I read the rest of the Gullibility paper . . . and yes as presented the results and predictive power is trash just like the News Stand book that was used to compile the test, i.e., there results did show that the general characteristics given in the News Stand book on Astrology was too general and could apply to anyone.

Unfortunately, as I said, no qualified Astrologer would use such a book to draw a Natal Chart. Those books are trash just like the Astrological page in the newspaper.

Not the point. Again.

The point is:
There are demonstrable, huge cognitive biases when you make a person affirm or deny a piece of text describing them - especially if it's positive.

This means that you cannot reliable use someone saying "Yes, I think this astrological prediction applies to me" as evidence for astrology because in that experiment and the hundreds of reproductions of that experiment, people have affirmed the generic, faulty "personality test" results given to them by the researcher and, as a result of this, said that the test was good or perfect.

So, when you say this:

1. Hey, look at this astrology thing for me!
2. Isn't it accurate?
3. Therefore, astrology.

It doesn't make very good evidence, due to the fact that humans have a well-documented cognitive bias in this area.

Yes?

So, when you said this:

Sun square Mars, Sun opposition Mars
There is an unmistakable competitiveness and a "me-first" attitude with those who have Sun square or opposition Mars in their natal charts. The fighter persona is most apparent in youth, when the child is described as a "bundle of energy", or it is remarked that he or she "can't sit still". The abundant energy generated by the hard aspects (especially the square) between the Sun and Mars is hard to direct in childhood. Later in life, ideally, those with these aspects have learned to channel some of their excess energy into productive avenues--perhaps through career, sports, or any area where competitiveness is considered an asset. Nevertheless, people with these aspects can meet up with more than their share of conflict, and they can most certainly rub people the wrong way. They are very motivated to get things done, to take action rather than simply talk about something, and to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible. Those who know them quite well might describe these people as hot-headed and temperamental at times. They are easily frustrated, and they're given to impulsive actions and assertion of their wills. If the aspect is found in cardinal signs, it gives impulsiveness and a short temper. If the aspect is found in fixed signs, the natives can be very hard-headed and willful. If it's in mutable signs, it gives a restless and frustrated impatience.

Essentially, those with Sun square Mars in their charts have faced conflict and are not particularly afraid of it. They have faced having their need to assert themselves blocked. Their parents may have done as much as they could to "tame" what they felt to be excess energy or aggression. In other words, they know all about conflict and blockages, so that when they are faced with a challenge or a roadblock, they don't run away from it or hide under the covers feeling sorry for themselves. They meet challenges head-on.

Sun opposition Mars people are more confrontational and argumentative than active. In youth, they might feel that they often face anger from others. They might see the Mars energy as coming from the outside. If and when they face the fact that the aggression is actually a part of their own personalities, they are more equipped to direct the competitive energy into productive avenues."
http://cafeastrology.com/natal/sunsquaremars.html

Sound familiar . . . what if any of that seems to apply to me . . .

it is not very good evidence for astrology as a result of this well-documented issue with human cognition. You'll have to provide evidence for astrology outside of you just saying "Hey, this sounds like me - therefore astrology."

Would you please answer the questions I asked of you above . . . such as . . . have you ever read a serious work on astrology?

I assume you mean "serious work by astrologers" - no.

This is not going to work for you unless you admit to yourself that you know next to nothing about what body of knowledge qualified Astrologers use in drawing a Natal Chart.

I don't see this as an issue when there is no evidence for any correlation between the position of the stars and planets and humans. Simply stating (or knowing) what they do isn't helpful.

I'll even buy you a good beginners book on Astrology if you give me an address to send it too . . .

Erm, you can if you want.

[Xru]

BTW, we are talking about Astrology here. . . not gullibility.

It's clear in the paper that the test composed of personality characteristics from a News Stand Astrology book was used for the data gathering phase of the study.

The source of the questions is flawed if you want to use this test as an example of how WRONG Astrology is.

Gullibility we agree on . . . got that Chrs!!!!!!

That this test shows that Astrology is false is the issue you seem to want to use it for. That is NOT going to work.

Now don't be a bonehead and keep harping on this crybaby "oh, you didn't read the article or understand it' crap. I read it . .. . I understand it . . . it is accurate in so far as it confirms gullibility but NOT accurate in dismissing Astrology as bunk. You'll have to do better than that.

[Chrs]

The source of the questions is flawed if you want to use this test as an example of how WRONG Astrology is.

I'm just going to quote myself. Again.

The point is:
There are demonstrable, huge cognitive biases when you make a person affirm or deny a piece of text describing them - especially if it's positive.

This means that you cannot reliable use someone saying "Yes, I think this astrological prediction applies to me" as evidence for astrology because in that experiment and the hundreds of reproductions of that experiment, people have affirmed the generic, faulty "personality test" results given to them by the researcher and, as a result of this, said that the test was good or perfect.

The point is not that because the study takes the points in the sketch partially from an news stand astrology book, that shows astrology is wrong.

[Xru]

The point is:
There are demonstrable, huge cognitive biases when you make a person affirm or deny a piece of text describing them - especially if it's positive.

So I assume that you have watch professional Astrologers conducting interviews with clients?

When I drew up Natal Charts I ALWAYS did it before the client arrived. All I went on was birth-date, birth time, and place. I did that specifically to avoid that conformational bias you talk about.

This means that you cannot reliable use someone saying "Yes, I think this astrological prediction applies to me" as evidence for astrology because in that experiment and the hundreds of reproductions of that experiment, people have affirmed the generic, faulty "personality test" results given to them by the researcher and, as a result of this, said that the test was good or perfect.

Competent honest Astrologers would never do this. That's Voodoo Astrology and on pare with palm-reading or channeling.

it is not very good evidence for astrology as a result of this well-documented issue with human cognition. You'll have to provide evidence for astrology outside of you just saying "Hey, this sounds like me - therefore astrology."

Your study is also lousy evidence against Astrology. All your study proves is that Cognitive Bias, which any psych 101 student should know about exists.

You'll have to provide evidence for astrology outside of you just saying "Hey, this sounds like me - therefore astrology."

I used this more for entertainment value Remember, I do not support the notion that Astrology is generally accurate, partially accurate, of a little accurate. My point is that you and many others don't have a clue about what "serious" Astrology is about or enough information to dismiss it justly.

This means that you cannot reliable use someone saying "Yes, I think this astrological prediction applies to me" as evidence for astrology because in that experiment and the hundreds of reproductions of that experiment, people have affirmed the generic, faulty "personality test" results given to them by the researcher and, as a result of this, said that the test was good or perfect.

Agreed . . . but once again I would never expose a client to the possibility of Confirmation Bias. So the point is irrelevant.

I don't see this as an issue when there is no evidence for any correlation between the position of the stars and planets and humans. Simply stating (or knowing) what they do isn't helpful.

You seem convinced that serious Astrologers would expose their clients to Confirmation Bias. I didn't, I wouldn't. I'm sure there are charlatans out there that pose as "professional Astrologers" that would use any and every means to hoodwink their clients. That doesn't invalidate Astrology.

[Xru]

The point is not that because the study takes the points in the sketch partially from an news stand astrology book, that shows astrology is wrong.

The study shows that any general question about personality is subject to confirmation bias Chrs.

This is the last time I'm going to say this. It does not show astrology is wrong.

The study is about cognitive bias Chrs . .. . don't be a tool, yo.

I'm not arguing the study anymore.

If you want to have me send a book on solid astrology and not some news stand crap PM me a BO Box if you are paranoid I'm goin gto stalk you, our just give me an address to send the book too you, okay Bro.

[Xru]

BTW, pm me your date of birth, month, day, year, time of birth and place of birth and I'll cook you up a Natal Chart and you can judge for yourself.

If you don't know your birth time you can ask your mother. They usually know. It has to be within a few minutes of the actual time though.

Your birth certificate should have it on it. American birth certificate do. Other wise we just do it without the rising sign but its better to have the rising sign as it is said to have a great influence on personality.

[Chrs]

The study shows that any general question about personality is subject to confirmation bias Chrs.

This is the last time I'm going to say this. It does not show astrology is wrong.

No, but it does mean that evidence such giving someone a chart and them agreeing with it is not good evidence at all for astrology - which discredits your:

Sun square Mars, Sun opposition Mars
There is an unmistakable competitiveness and a "me-first" attitude with those who have Sun square or opposition Mars in their natal charts. The fighter persona is most apparent in youth, when the child is described as a "bundle of energy", or it is remarked that he or she "can't sit still". The abundant energy generated by the hard aspects (especially the square) between the Sun and Mars is hard to direct in childhood. Later in life, ideally, those with these aspects have learned to channel some of their excess energy into productive avenues--perhaps through career, sports, or any area where competitiveness is considered an asset. Nevertheless, people with these aspects can meet up with more than their share of conflict, and they can most certainly rub people the wrong way. They are very motivated to get things done, to take action rather than simply talk about something, and to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible. Those who know them quite well might describe these people as hot-headed and temperamental at times. They are easily frustrated, and they're given to impulsive actions and assertion of their wills. If the aspect is found in cardinal signs, it gives impulsiveness and a short temper. If the aspect is found in fixed signs, the natives can be very hard-headed and willful. If it's in mutable signs, it gives a restless and frustrated impatience.

Essentially, those with Sun square Mars in their charts have faced conflict and are not particularly afraid of it. They have faced having their need to assert themselves blocked. Their parents may have done as much as they could to "tame" what they felt to be excess energy or aggression. In other words, they know all about conflict and blockages, so that when they are faced with a challenge or a roadblock, they don't run away from it or hide under the covers feeling sorry for themselves. They meet challenges head-on.

Sun opposition Mars people are more confrontational and argumentative than active. In youth, they might feel that they often face anger from others. They might see the Mars energy as coming from the outside. If and when they face the fact that the aggression is actually a part of their own personalities, they are more equipped to direct the competitive energy into productive avenues."
http://cafeastrology.com/natal/sunsquaremars.html

Sound familiar . . . what if any of that seems to apply to me . . .

...and also any other claims in the form: "[Person] got reading with astrology and he said it was accurate!"

Additionally, this failing of human reasoning also explains why people believe in astrology.

Do you have any other evidence of it being true?

BTW, pm me your date of birth, month, day, year, time of birth and place of birth and I'll cook you up a Natal Chart and you can judge for yourself.

Even if you did, and I looked at it and agreed with it, what would it say? Would it be good evidence for astrology? No, of course not - because of basically everything I have said in this thread so far. In fact, the hundreds of studies about what people do when presented with a description of their personalities would suggest that I would mostly likely agree with it, regardless of the source.

As a matter of interest - how long does you making one of these charts take? We could do a little experiment with TWebbers, if it's not too long.

[Xru]

No, but it does mean that evidence such giving someone a chart and them agreeing with it is not good evidence at all for astrology - which discredits your:

Agreed.

Do you have any other evidence of it being true?

No . . . the empirical data that I've seen does not confirm the accuracy of Astrology.

Even if you did, and I looked at it and agreed with it, what would it say? Would it be good evidence for astrology? No, of course not - because of basically everything I have said in this thread so far. In fact, the hundreds of studies about what people do when presented with a description of their personalities would suggest that I would mostly likely agree with it, regardless of the source.

I don't agree with this but the arguments are along the lines we've already discussed so . . . .

As for evidence . . . that would be anecdotal evidence which in this age 2012 is not taken seriously. However, anecdotal evidence is valid evidence to some including me if considered in an appropriate way.

There are programs that will do Natal Charts very quickly.

Hand done charts take probably a couple hours. I used to have a program. They are cheep and if enough TWebbers wanted to get in on it I'd be willing to spill for the 20 - 30 bucks it'd take to buy me another one soooo

[Chrs]

No . . . the empirical data that I've seen does not confirm the accuracy of Astrology.

Right, so... why are we having this discussion? If there's no evidence for it being true?

As for evidence . . . that would be anecdotal evidence which in this age 2012 is not taken seriously

Yes, and it'd also be bad anecdotal evidence due to the findings of the aforementioned study. You agreed with that.

So, that leaves us with very little evidence for astrology - as you said. Why exactly are we discussing this when we both agree?

Hand done charts take probably a couple hours. I used to have a program. They are cheep and if enough TWebbers wanted to get in on it I'd be willing to spill for the 20 - 30 bucks it'd take to buy me another one soooo

I'll consider running a little experiment when I have more time. Read: summer.

[Xru]

Right, so... why are we having this discussion? If there's no evidence for it being true?

Re-read my OP you bonehead. I clarified this several times.

Yes, and it'd also be bad anecdotal evidence due to the findings of the aforementioned study. You agreed with that.

Geez Chrs . . I agreed there is no empirical evidence. Anecdotal evidence is evidence and is the source of most of the major theories of personality starting with Freud!!!!!!!!!!! Step out of your materialist naturalistic universe for a second, eh.

So, that leaves us with very little evidence for astrology - as you said. Why exactly are we discussing this when we both agree?

Chrs my brother, you and I don't agree on anything.

BTW, if'n you want that book pm me. If you want a natal chart pm me.

[Chrs]

Re-read my OP you bonehead. I clarified this several times.

Yes, I know you disavowed any claim to believing in it - but generally when you take up a position to defend you actually have some evidence to defend it with.

Geez Chrs . . I agreed there is no empirical evidence

Yes.

Anecdotal evidence is evidence and is the source of most of the major theories of personality starting with Freud!!!!!!!!!!!

Sure, anecdotal evidence is evidence. Not massively good evidence on its own. On the other hand, anecdotal evidence in the area:
-Contradicts stronger, empirical evidence and,
-is also known to be incredibly unreliable due to the fact that people are very bad about objectively analysing their experiences in this field.

The anecdotal evidence in this context is very weak and is nowhere near sufficient to show astrology to be true.

Step out of your materialist naturalistic universe for a second, eh.

Astrology isn't true. It doesn't matter if I'm a materialist or not, it just isn't true.

[Xru]

Yes, I know you disavowed any claim to believing in it - but generally when you take up a position to defend you actually have some evidence to defend it with.

Give me your natal chart information and I'll show you evidence.

[Chrs]

Give me your natal chart information and I'll show you evidence.

But you've literally just said:

No, but it does mean that evidence such giving someone a chart and them agreeing with it is not good evidence at all for astrology

Agreed.

It wouldn't be good evidence at all to do that, so why?

[Xru]

Sure, anecdotal evidence is evidence. Not massively good evidence on its own.

You say . ..

Astrology isn't true. It doesn't matter if I'm a materialist or not, it just isn't true.

So says the Master who has read a few anti-Astrology studies, is an fanatic logical positivist and evidently loves to make grand generalizations with NO good evidence provided

[Xru]

It wouldn't be good evidence at all to do that, so why?

Just give me your natal chart information and learn young man. U will get something you do not expect I guarantee it.

Then you will have a basis to dismiss Astrology . . . admittedly a small one.