lauren@vortex.UUCP (07/05/83)
Of course, most of the propaganda taught by *all* religious schools is basically on the same level as saying that "the sun revolves around the earth". In fact, most of it is worse, since at least it's possible to derive meaningful equations to describe local planetary motions even *with* the erroneous assumption of an earth-centered universe. Deriving equations to "prove" the sorts of religious drivel taught to youngsters at most religious "educational" institutions would be another matter entirely, to say the least. Please send all flames to net.religion, to which I do not subscribe... How did this discussion ever get onto net.misc, anyway? Cheers. --Lauren--
ignatz@ihuxx.UUCP (07/07/83)
Jeez, I hate to add to the null-content datacomm test messages, but...this *is* somewhat amusing... Once (circa 1978) I had a next-door neighbor who was a devout follower of and believer in astrology; and, as it was bound to happen, her astrologer was over one night for dinner the same night I'd been invited. I listened, rather indulgently, to te two of them exulting overr my chart (it involves my being a Scorpio, but with lotsa water planets, or something similar--whatever, it drives astrology types crazy), and snagged on the woebegone complaint from the astrologer: "You don't know how HARD it is to calculate the celestial positions, especially because of the retrograde motions of the planets..." Followed a conversation very much like the following: Me: You calculate everything using RETROGRADE motions, like, with the Ptolemaic system??? Astrologer: Of course; that's the way the universe works. Me: Far be it for me; I'm a mere machine-twiddling CS jock. But you admit that, even if you don't believe in the Copernican system, that the numbers work out if you use it? Astrologer: Well, yes, they do. Me: Then wouldn't it be easier to convert a client's planetary configuration to a Copernican one, then calculate the relevant whatevers, then convert back to your Ptolemaic system? Maybe using a soulless computer?..*snicker*... Astrologer: Why...I never dreamed...you're RIGHT!! I'll find a computer service *immediately!* OH, THANK YOU!!! *kiss* I found out that she eventually bought time on a timeshare service and used the program that she'd had written for her to make *lotsa* money. Last time **I** ever give away an idea, no matter how hare-brained it seems... Snickering indulgently, but not getting royalties, Dave Ihnat ihuxx!ignatz
tim@unc.UUCP (07/07/83)
[I] snagged on the woebegone complaint from the
astrologer: "You don't know how HARD it is to
calculate the celestial positions, especially because
of the retrograde motions of the planets..." Followed
a conversation very much like the following:
Me: You calculate everything using RETROGRADE
motions, like, with the Ptolemaic system???
Astrologer: Of course; that's the way the universe
works.
Me: Far be it for [sic] me; I'm a mere machine-
twiddling CS jock. But you admit that, even if you
don't believe in the Copernican system, that the
numbers work out if you use it?
Astrologer: Well, yes, they do.
Me: Then wouldn't it be easier to convert a
client's planetary configuration to a Copernican one,
then calculate the relevant whatevers, then convert
back to your Ptolemaic system? Maybe using a soulless
computer? ...*snicker*...
Astrologer: Why...I never dreamed...you're RIGHT!!
I'll find a computer service *immediately!* OH, THANK
YOU!!! *kiss*
Now, hold on a minute. Far be it from me to defend astrologers,
but something is wrong about this story. From my own former
experience with making horoscopes, I know that you do not calculate
the positions of the planets yourself. You look in an ephemeris and
do some VERY simple arithmetic. (The only complication is that you
have to use base 60 because you use hours, minutes, and seconds.)
Your story is no doubt true, but could you provide a little more
detail so that I can make sense of it?
About the Ptolemaic system -- what is important to astrologers is
the positions of the planets relative to an observer on a particular
point on the Earth. It should therefore come as no surprise that
retrograde motions and other phenomena which would not be noted by
an observer above the plane of the ecliptic are important. In addition,
using retrograde motion makes the calculations from the ephemeris much
simpler. There are reasons to deride astrology, but that is not one
of them.
By the way, the fact that there is no scientific explanation for
astrological phenomena is also no evidence against astrology. In
science, observation precedes explanation, not the other way around.
I am amazed at how many reputable scientists, such as Carl Sagan, use
this argument. They really should know better. That is the same
reasoning the Church used to avoid looking through Galileo's telescope.
______________________________________
The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney
duke!unc!tim (USENET)
tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hillsmb@ulysses.UUCP (07/07/83)
If someone wishes to claim validity for astrology or any other discipline, I request that they provide either objective, non-anecdotal evidence that the phenomena actually exist, or a sound theoretical basis for the discipline. To my knowledge, astrologers can provide neither.
ignatz@ihuxx.UUCP (07/08/83)
Concerning: an anecdote about an astrologer and her complaints; and Tim Maroney querying the difficulty of making a horoscope. (No, I'm not going to repost both articles, Virginia...) Tim, the way she told it, the tedious part was looking up all these entries in the ephemeris; particularly, she was a "professional" and insisted on accuracy to minutes of time, etc. To her, apparently, the simple arithmatic was boggling--generously, I'll allow that it may have been volume, not difficulty. Also, it's a lot simpler to translate to a Copernican system and simply calculate the position of a planet in its orbit than to try to figure in that silly retrograde motion. If you're figuring from the ephemeris, then the numbers may be easier to work out--but the motions of the planets are so regular that you could much more simply and easily program a base configuration and run a projection forward or back for almost any period of time, certainly acquiring a greater accuracy as well. Enough of this; any more and I'll start walking on thin ice. All I know, empirically, was that after pointing out that the Copernican calculations are very mechanical and easy to program, she hired somebody to do it and sold herself as having faster, more accurate horoscopes and counseling guides than anyone else; and seemed to make the money from the claim. Still not getting royalties, Dave Ihnat ihuxx!ignatz
jjm@hou5e.UUCP (07/08/83)
To my knowledge, astrologers persist in using astrological charts that are completely out of date! According to Carl Sagan, (a relatively reliable source) since the original definitive zodiac was defined, the sun-signs have shifted a full house! In other words, don't believe this "if you were born in October, you're a Scorpio" bullcrap. But, as Sagan says, the astrologers haven't seemed to notice. On to other matters. I believe that the first few months of an infant's life are crucial in the development of the personality of the individual. Therefore, the SEASON you were born in probably has an influence on your personality. Notice that I say influence. This is not the major factor. However, It should be possible with the modern techniques (i.e. computers and all that) to devise a psychological profile questionnaire to attempt to SCIENTIFICALLY determine how much of an influence your season of birth affects you. I would assume I'd need to find a good psychologist to help me set up the questionnaire. I think I could handle the computation and statistical analysis. Any volunteers? This looks like it could be an idea for a best-selling non-fiction novel! (PLEASE NOTE: I am serious about this. A copy of this message will be notarized and If any of you publish a book based on this I'll sue your fanny off.) Jim McPArland American Bell - Holmdel hou5e!jjm
filed01@abnjh.UUCP (07/13/83)
The concept of a centered universe is somewhat arbitrary. Since all motion is relative, the earth could be taken as the center of the universe. The equations describing the motion of all other celestial bodies them become somewhat complicated, however.
ellis@flairvax.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (07/14/83)
If the earth were stationary and everything revolved about it,
that'd mean that most of the universe is traveling vastly
in excess of the speed of light.
In this sense, rotation is an ABSOLUTE motion -- which I find
disturbing since modern physics has discarded most other kinds
of absolute motions. Maybe I've missed something.
Any physicists out there ?
-michaelalle@ihuxb.UUCP (07/14/83)
What "astrological phenomena" are you talking about? Scientists deride astrology because it pretends to be a science when it is little more than pseudo-religious mumbo jumbo! I do not know of a single phenomena that can be explained using astrology. I would welcome evidence of such things. Just because something can not be disproved does not justify believing in it. That was the argument used by Sagan in "Cosmos". Skeptically, Allen England at Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL.
mark@hp-kirk.UUCP (07/15/83)
#R:vortex:-6700:hp-kirk:11300003:000:383
hp-kirk!mark Jul 13 08:02:00 1983
I don't believe that it is so much a case of not having an
explanation for astrological phenomena as a case of not having any
reliable astrological phenomena to have an explanation for.
Death Rowe (Scorpio)
hp-pcd!hp-cvd!mark
Corvallis, Oregontim@unc.UUCP (07/16/83)
Here is a response to an article of mine. It was written by Allen
England.
What "astrological phenomena" are you talking
about? Scientists deride astrology because it
pretends to be a science when it is little more than
pseudo-religious mumbo jumbo!
As I said originally, I am not interested in defending
astrologers. However, a lot of scientists display an appalling lack
of fairness when they speak of astrology. There is a lot of loose
talk against it. Allen here is guilty of this as well.
How is it that astrology pretends to be a science? Are you saying
that it pretends to be a science because it claims to deliver
information? Are you saying, then, that science has a monopoly on
information gathering? If your answer to either of the latter
questions is no, then I don't understand what you are saying, and I
would appreciate clarification. I will assume that you answer both in
the affirmative for the purposes of this discussion; even if this is
not the case with you, I know it is with many people on the net.
To give science a monopoly on truth is to be dogmatic and close-
minded. Science is a model, a particular way of gathering and
organizing data. It is entirely possible that this model has inherent
limitations. I don't know of any, but that hardly means that none can
exist. To claim otherwise is to put yourself on the same level as the
Bible-thumpers.
By the way, some clarification is in order for those of you who
have only been exposed to newspaper horoscopes and other simplistic
forms of sun-sign astrology. All these are prima facie nonsense --
when they are not too general to be considered useful at all, they are
too specific to apply to all their subjects. Dividing the population
into twelve groups this way is obvious bull. The sort of astrology
performed by professional astrological consultants is by no means on
the same level of gibberish. It may be nonsense, but it is definitely
not prima facie nonsense. Do it yourself (it isn't that hard, with
the right books) and see.
I do not know of a single phenomena [sic -- read
phenomenon] that can be explained using astrology. I
would welcome evidence of such things. Just because
something can not be disproved does not justify
believing in it. That was the argument used by Sagan
in "Cosmos".
Who says that astrology cannot be disproved? The fundamental
assertion of astrology is that trained astrologers can derive useful
information about an individual from a complete astrological chart.
This is a testable assertion. Consider the following experimental
design.
A random sample of people is selected. Complete astrological
information about each is computed. The astrological data is
presented to a team of trained astrologers -- selection of this team
might be a bit difficult, but the astrological professional
organizations could help. They examine this, doing additional
calculation if they desire, and then perform interviews with each of
the subjects. During these interviews, any mention of age, birthdate,
or birthplace is forbidden. All persons in the sample should be about
the same age, to prevent identification by means of long-lived aspects
between the outer planets (which last decades). After the interviews,
the astrologers attempt to match horoscopes to subjects.
This is not a complete experimental design; we need to do this
several times with several samples. In addition, at least one trial
should be a control trial, in which the interview step is omitted.
The experimental results will follow from statistical analysis of
the matching. If the team performs at levels significantly better
than chance would allow, with the standard significance levels of
psychological research, then we could say that there was some evidence
for the fundamental assertion. Otherwise, we could say that we had
failed to achieve results that contradict the null hypothesis. If the
same experiment is performed with several teams of astrologers and the
null hypothesis is not contradicted in any case, we can say that
astrology is bullshit, or that all our astrologers are incompetent.
If a large enough sample of astrologers is taken, and the null
hypothesis is not contradicted, then the chances of anyone finding any
competent astrologer are too remote to be of consequence, which is
basically the same thing as saying that astrology is not useful, thus
contradicting the fundamental assertion of astrology and "disproving"
it. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the thing, you can't prove
that there are NO competent astrologers, but you don't really need
to go that far to have a practical disproof.
If the null hypothesis is contradicted in any case, it may be that
the astrologers in the other cases are incompetent, but that this team
is competent. Further experiments with the sucessful teams can
determine this. It is important that care is taken here; Rhine used
this method to get falsely inflated results. He had "rounds" of
subjects; if you did well enough in the first round, you went on to
the second, and so on, until he had a set of people which had done
well in every round. These were held up as examples, but if you took
into account the size of the initial sample things were not very
impressive -- the "luck" of the core group was really just what you
would expect from chance with a sample that big. Once the problem is
recognized, though, there are ways to prevent it legitimately.
So, the fundamental assertion of astrology is testable; there may
be some kinks in the detailed design right now, but the overall design
seems workable. Now who's going to pay for it? How many funding
organizations do you know of that would underwrite such a study? How
many psychology professors who, even if by some chance they were
open-minded enough to be interested in it, would lay their careers and
reputations on the line by suggesting such a thing? (Remember,
psychologists have even more reason than astronomers to resent
astrology.)
The simple fact is that no such study has been done, and that due
to prejudices in the scientific world it may never be done. If you
won't let someone try to get evidence, it is hardly fair to castigate
him for not having any. That is what I object to, that blatant
unfairness. My own opinion on the matter is that we should not reject
astrology out of hand on the basis of the lack of evidence, since
after all the thing is testable and no tests have been done. This is
not an "invisible fairies under the chair" matter, in which the
assertion is untestable. Both those who accept astrology and those
who reject it usually do so on grounds that I find unacceptable; not
having any strong opinion on the matter, I choose not to throw in
with either camp, and try to bring the two closer.
______________________________________
The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney
duke!unc!tim (USENET)
tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hillnather@utastro.UUCP (07/16/83)
I do not know of a single phenomena
that can be explained using astrology.
Nor does anyone: phenomenon is singluar, phenomena plural.
Just like "media".
:-}
Ed Natherhalle1@houxz.UUCP (07/19/83)
Tim, your experimental idea seems sound, but there is a potential problem with the interpretation of the results. Suppose out of 120 subjects, only 1 was identified properly. Pure chance would say 10 should be identified correctly. Then some might say, "Astrologers results are significantly different than what pure chance would predict," ignoring the fact that they were WORSE than chance. If results were not given, they'd get away with it. Unlikely, you say? Well, this has already happened. One of the astronauts to the moon, Buzz Aldren, I think, did an ESP experiment on the way with "psychics" on earth. The results were significantly worse than chance. Besides, the experiment was invalid for several other reasons. Yet, the results were reported as I stated above. "These results could occur by chance only once out of a million times." So the hype went. So beware of tests of this sort.
smb@ulysses.UUCP (07/19/83)
Actually, there may have been a study done on astrology. I just received an ad for "The Skeptical Inquirer"; one cover photo shown implied just that. But none of the libraries I've found around here have the magazine; would someone who can do so easily check on this? (Aside to Tim Maroney: I know that the Math-Physics library at UNC subscribes.) --Steve
spaf@gatech.UUCP (07/20/83)
The implication was made that results which are significantly worse
than predicted by probability should not be interpreted in a
positive manner. I disagree with this. If you perform a carefully
organized experiment and get results far from what you expected
then you have gained information, although you must be careful
how you interpret that information.
As an example, consider a test of ESP phenomena. Suppose you
go through a deck of cards and ask someone to guess the color
of each card in turn. Suppose in 100 attempts the person
got only 10 correct. Suppose this was a carefully controlled
experiment and the results were repeatable. Would that indicate
that there is no such thing as ESP? I don't believe so.
It indicates something, although maybe not exactly what you
wanted to prove. (BTW, I believe something like this
has been shown to be the case. Some very reputable institutions
doing ESP research have found "negative" receivers who show
an ability to detect what something hidden from view is *not*.)
Other examples would be like finding 90% less gravitational
attraction at some point, or less electrical charge, or
less free ions in solution, or whatever. It simply proves
that something in your original theory was wrong, but you are
measuring something that can be classed as information.
Finding only 1 person out of 120 when you expected 10 is a
possibly significant result, especially if you can extend
the results to 120,000 test subjects. You just have to
be a little more careful of the conclusions you draw.
--
"The soapbox of Gene Spafford"
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech
Internet: Spaf.GATech @ UDel-Relay
uucp: ...!{sb1,allegra}!gatech!spaf
...!duke!mcnc!msdc!gatech!spafmark@utzoo.UUCP (mark bloore) (07/20/83)
from the summer 1983 "skeptical inquirer":
The Astronomical Society of the Pacific has prepared an information
packet for the public critiquing astrology. It is designed to provide
students, teachers, librarians and the general public with clear, specific
information debunking astrology. It includes several articles outlining
the dozens of scientific tests showing astrology does not work, an annotated
bibliography of further readings, and an interview on the subject with
astronomer George Abell. Copies of the packet are available for $2.00
each (to cover costs) from: Astronomical Society of the Pacific,
Astrology Packet Dept., 1290 24th Ave., San Francisco, CA 94122.
-K.F.
mARK bLOORE
univ of toronto
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!marktim@unc.UUCP (07/20/83)
The phenomenon sometimes called "psi-missing" in psi research is
usually pointed out as one of the things that is obviously wrong with
the methods in the field. I do not like psi research, I do not
believe in psychic powers, but I also dislike smug unfairness on the
part of scientists.
Here's what I learned in statistics a few years ago: a fundamental
part of the evaluation of experimental observations (in psychology, at
least) is the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis, in a nutshell, is
that the observations made can be attributed to chance; that is, that
there is no significance to the observations. You then see to what
extent your observations contradict the null hypothesis. Using a
variety of mostly mathematical means, beyond the scope of this
discussion, you arrive at a measure of how probable it is that the
null hypothesis is correct. If there is a low probability (5 to 10
percent is a common threshold) that the observations were due to
chance, then you say that the results are significant.
If someone were to guess no cards right out of a five-card deck in
one thousand trials, the results exceed any reasonable threshold of
significance. The null hypothesis is strongly contradicted. This is
not in itself what you would call "evidence of psychic powers", but it
is, from the definition of significance, a significant result. If
you can see no other way of explaining it except to assume that there
is some hidden force transmitting some sort of information, that's
something you'll just have to live with.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no well-documented case of
psi-missing being significant in the overall scope of an experiment.
This article is an attempt to remove some of the unfairness that
scientists reserve for their most despised opponents. Not only
scientists do this, of course; the Amazing Randi, a stage magician who
enjoys provably debunking fraudulent psychics, wrote an excellent book
on Uri Geller (a former stage magician who seems to have decided there
was more money in refusing to admit that there was illusion involved),
but in this book he ridiculed the idea of psi-missing, proving a deep
bias and a lack of comprehension of the scientific method. Scientists
should know better than this, and that's why I get irked when they
abandon their scientific ideals in the presence of people they
disagree with strongly. The feeling seems to be that there is no need
to even give a fair hearing to certain beliefs. Recently, I have been
asked to justify my keeping an open mind on astrology. Given the lack
of evidence against astrology, I am asked to justify keeping an open
mind? If I believed in it, this might be a reasonable objection, but
since when is keeping an open mind in the absence of evidence a sin?
______________________________________
The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney
duke!unc!tim (USENET)
tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hillnrh@inmet.UUCP (07/21/83)
#R:vortex:-6700:inmet:6400032:000:334 inmet!nrh Jul 20 10:14:00 1983 One wrinkle to add to your experiment -- the same people should be interviewed by carnival age and weight guessers. If the astrologers do only as well as the age and weight guessers at matching the horoscope (and thus birthdate) to the people, then the astrologers have not proven anything except that they'd do fine in a carnival.