What is your Zodiac [astrology]?

Post Reply New Topic

what about gravitational pull of the moon and its effects on the waves...likewise a womb?? Not that I am really that serious about astrology just curious, however, anadotal evidence has its pitfals cause people are not always how they view themselves to be.

leave it to me to argue both sides of a debate at the same time

getting all emotional about a debate is a sign of a untrained mind. If you can keep your cool even when you are dead wrong you have a better chance of appearing like you know what you are talking about.

In the other poll, Pisces has the lowest response. Unscientific polls aren't a very good source of data.

No, its founded in my knowledge of astronomy, cosmology, physics, and the use of scientific method. You are actually being rather arrogant. I recommend you calm down. You still have not addressed my argument, other than the unfounded and weak claim it is based on 'arrogance'. So, essentially, you've got nothing



I absolutely don't think people in the past were idiots. At one point in time all there was was Astrology. Please stop with the logical fallacies, this is a blatant straw man argument, as I never claimed anything of the kind. Another ad hominem attack- lack of knowledge of history? You base that on...? I've been studying history virtually my entire life. Do you disagree that the first Astronomers were Astrologers? Or that mainstream Astrology & the Church (mostly the Church really, but the Church or government sanctioned Astrologers were frequently the most vocal opponents) attempted to quash them (often by burning at the stake) for suggesting the Heliocentric model? It just doesn't make sense to me that you make these arguments. Its kind of funny really. You could easily stop acting this way at any time. I have no reason to be mean to you. I'm being courteous to you by even acknowledging you despite your logical fallacy/personal attack full posts and immature and belligerent attitude.



I don't remember you in any other astrology topic, or an explanation of the Mars Effect. This is the first thread I've ever interacted with you, and thus far I'm not impressed. Like virtually every Astrology advocate I have encountered, you base your entire argument on personal attacks. Its kind of amusing



Careful Fnord, apparently pointing out that there is no evidence for Astrology outside of personal anecdotes, or discussing the history of Astrology in relation to Astronomy, makes one arrogant and illogical



That's a fair question. However by now there would have been some evidence. Scientists everywhere reject Astrology, and every time experiments are done none of the results give it any credence.



MrLoony might want to take that lesson to heart

My sister likes to argue a point that she knows is wrong for sport and even somehow appears to be right... just for mental stimulation. btw ...she is in law school. But she always keeps her cool when debating even when she knows she is wrong and so do I. Thats where I learned that one from.

Often times the person who is making the argument matters as does their method of argument. When one gets caught up in hysterics they lose the confidence of observers as they appear unable to handle their own emotions. Your sister sounds very intelligent. I can't imagine being in law school, I hear its very competitive. I'm not a very competitive guy though there are other careers than a lawyer possible, I also hate the thought of being up there in the court room. Not a fan of public speaking myself. I'm far better at writing as a form of expression than I am with speaking

So what you're saying is that you're backing down from my challenge to logically explain the Mars Effect? It should be no trouble at all if you are (as you claim) unbiased.

You do know what ad hominem means, right? You throw that term around a lot where it really doesn't apply at all.

Why should I explain the Mars Effect? What relevance does that have? Why don't you? I think the Mars Effect is a classic example of selection bias, nothing more. Like most other anecdotal 'evidence' for Astrology.
I said I was impassive, in regards to your insults- this 'bias' line is just another straw man. I am definitely aware of what ad hominem attacks are, as you have been freely engaging in them. It is an attack on the person, rather than the argument. Which does actually apply, as every other sentence of yours is a personal attack on me, and I have yet to see any good points or well-reasoned arguments from you, at all. You have yet to provide any evidence that there is validity to Astrology. Instead you lead this down some personal attack/utterly pointless line of discourse to divert attention away from the real issue. You have literally said nothing. Please stop being disingenuous, the burden of proof is on the ones making the claims- the Astrologers. All I am doing is being critical of these claims.

Please provide some evidence or just stop with this pointless line of discussion, it is literally going nowhere, you have said absolutely nothing, instead relying on the classic pseudo science defense of logical fallacy and mudslinging. There's no reason for you to engage in this sort of behavior, I've been very reasonable with you.

She is so smart that my mom thinks she is an alien sometimes.
She taught herself to multiply before preschool if that gives you any idea. Ya I hate public speaking, but she seems to do good at it. I am proud of her though...she is more of a verb than a nown.

An alien?! lol that's very cool. I like that term- more of a verb than a noun. I'm going to have to remember that

If you feel the need to derail this thread into a discussion of how valid Astrology is the least you could do is to keep it civil.

If you can't live with the idea that others believe/don't believe in something take your intolerance some place else or at least express it in a less offensive manner. It's tiring to see how many people can't cope with the idea that others don't think exactly like them

Back on topic, I'm indifferent to Astrology and I'm a Gemini.

I'm tried unsuccessfully to defuse this argument probably three times now. If MrLoony is really interested in continuing this argument, as I don't feel derailing this thread is necessary or polite to the OP, he can PM me at any time. I just ask that he please drops the belligerent attitude if he wishes to PM me

I never set out to prove astrology. I set out to prove that the "no evidence" argument is nonsensical and used by people who are biased (why you don't get this when I quite clearly said this is beyond me).

Which is why you should explain the Mars Effect. If you were unbiased, you could explain it logically. Those biased towards disbelief say it is random (or that it's made up, for those that aren't good at analyzing evidence at all). Those biased towards belief say it's proof. There is a third option that both are missing, and is only available to those that are not biased. My evidence is that you cannot explain it, except by saying that it's random.

Anecdotal evidence =/= scientific evidence. And everyone is biased to some extent. You seem to be biased against the scientific community and debunking of pseudo-science. And the 'no evidence' statement is not nonsensical, it is a reflection of what the current consensus of the scientific community is. Being critical of ideas that have nothing but personal anecdotes to support them and yet millions of people buy into does not automatically mean 'bias', it is healthy skepticism. I don't see why you cannot respect that.



Why would I need to explain the Mars Effect? It has no more scientific evidence than any other Astrology claim. And if you want a logical explanation, I recommend you look into the selection bias. That does not make 'random causation' the implication for the 'Mars Effect', but rather the selective methodology of the initial research itself. The selection bias is pretty well the best explanation for almost all Astrological claims. Mars is my favorite planet, btw

Off topic, but I was reading a bit of your blog and I rather like it. You have some interesting viewpoints. I've always thought Taoism and most Eastern philosophy is fascinating. My personal favorite ancient Eastern work is probably Sun Tzu - The Art of War. I just picked up a copy recently of the Bhagavad Gita (Hindu) that I intend to read through when I get the opportunity

But you're not a skeptic, you're a dismisser. You say that, because no evidence exists currently, it must not be true. I've already pointed out the problem with this, but I'll address it again:

1. Astrology is dismissed out of hand. For the record, this was also true with tea for a very long time (one of my examples). Doctors dismissed that it could have the health benefits associated with it. It's only recently that they've begun to accept the fact that it has a LOT of health benefits. There aren't any studies done that take a serious look at a correlation between particular factors of heavenly bodies and personality. Most of the studies done focus on whether or not predictions are accurate, if people can be fooled into thinking that an inaccurate reading is accurate, etc. Basically, they call astrologers into question, not astrology. There haven't been studies done on whether there's a statistically significant correlation between personality and the position of heavenly bodies (except for the Mars Effect, which is what makes it significant).

2. This assumes that you know all studies done, ever. You can't say this, for obvious reasons.

The problem with selection bias is that that it basically says that the Mars Effect is made up. There is another way of explaining it, though. If you'd like to hear my explanation (that both assumes that it doesn't prove astrology and that the Mars Effect actually exists), I will tell you.

Edit: PM'd you about off-topic stuff

No, I am a skeptic, because using scientific method, the various claims of Astrology are thus far not observable except by anecdotal evidence and what amounts essentially to cold reading. How does one go about testing the theories espoused by Astrologers in a scientific manner? Thus far some have tried, and the ones that show no evidence are usually ignored, while the research done by questionable scientists not working within the framework of falsifiability tends to be referenced as 'evidence' (The Mars Effect being perhaps the seminal example of this). If I was just going to dismiss Astrology I would not be engaging in this conversation, asking for evidence and giving you my time

I get really annoyed when I'm talking with people about Astronomy and the only things about planets and stars they seem to know is irrelevant Astrology 'facts'. It really bothers me that some people seem to equate Astrology with Astronomy. I'm very interested by virtually anything space related and it really pisses me off to no end that for some people the first thing that comes to mind when I mention I am an amateur astronomer is 'oh my sign is Libra'. Can you not see why that is harmful? It takes about the same amount of time to read about Astronomy and understand it at a basic level as it does Astrology, yet millions of people are unwilling to do this, despite the fact that only one out of these two fields actually accomplishes anything. Astrology is a multimillion dollar business. But what benefits has it provided the Human race (other than a few of them, hundreds of years ago, becoming Astronomers)? Asides the lack of scientific evidence, the lack of plausible, concrete benefits really leads me to believe that Astrology is essentially just a really big business, like any other form of entertainment. It also makes some people feel they can generalize others (negatively or positively, but either way, not a good thing) using Astrology as justification. In Indian society this has actually caused some harm. And you can be sure some bad decisions have been made because of Astrology



Preferably tea without caffeine, I imagine. I'm quite partial to decaf tea myself (no caffeine for me, ever). I have read there are antioxidant benefits among other things. But I don't see these two things being equatable, because one can actually observe the benefits of tea in a laboratory environment or by doing hard research, which, evidently, was done.



Well, why wouldn't they look into whether predictions are accurate? How is that not questioning Astrology? If the results are questionable on a consistent basis, there is definitely a flaw in the methodology- this methodology being 'Astrology'. And frankly, there are more important things in space to investigate other than the superstitious beliefs inherent to believing in the Zodiac as a guide to personality



And yet these studies into the Mars Effect have been heavily criticized for being very evident of selection bias. And now there are ~2,000 newly discovered Extrasolar planets out there. What effect do they have? There are so many variables that one could easily read into and build a theory on little more than circumstantial evidence that could later make big money



Not necessarily, the implication of the evident use of selection bias is that the initial research done into the Mars Effect is flawed and needs to be reopened and done by scientists who are going to do the research in a proper manner



If you wish