The prevailing (but invalid) argument of the astrologers in this regard is that only on the basis of a complete birth chart based on the exact date and time of birth can one see the true power of astrology. In this entry we will focus on studies that have examined exactly this
In the previous records we saw that repeated studies failed to find any connection between the astrological sun sign in which the person was born and his character traits, or events in his life. The prevailing (but invalid) argument of the astrologers in this regard is that only on the basis of a complete birth chart based on the exact date and time of birth can one see the true power of astrology. In this entry we will focus on studies that have examined exactly this.
First warning signs - embarrassing mistakes
Every professional makes mistakes sometimes. Engineers sometimes make mistakes and bridges collapse, doctors sometimes make mistakes and people die as a result of a wrong diagnosis or get up on the operating table after being operated on the wrong leg. Sometimes the mistakes are less disastrous. The shipment reaches the wrong destination, a device connected to the wrong voltage burns, etc.
But sometimes a big mistake has no visible effect. These cases are no less interesting. Here are some personal confessions of astrologers:
Donald Bradley said in a 1964 issue of American Astrology: "How many times have you worked with incorrect birth data and found amazing matches in the client's life? We have all experienced this shocking experience. Give me false data and the chances are good that I will be able to find supporting parameters in the birth chart, and with many reinforcements, that show how wonderfully astrology works. Too many times we discovered that someone was actually born in 1923 and not in 1924, or that the time of birth was recorded as PM instead of AM, or that the time of birth was recorded in summer time instead of winter time, etc. But even though the information was fundamentally wrong, the wheels of the birth chart ticked with no less success. Is it science? This is a big question, and the whole value of astrology rests on it."
Rob Hand says in the NOV-DEC 1989 issue of the Astrological Journal: “I'm sure you've all experienced the horrible and demoralizing phenomenon of being given a brilliant reading based on a wrong birth date! It's one of those embarrassing little things we don't like to talk about. Nevertheless, we must admit that such errors are a real phenomenon."
Or as Geoffery Cornelius said in his book The moment of astrology from 1994: "The completely wrong horoscope that is produced on the basis of wrong information works quite often (although not always) exactly as if it were the correct horoscope".
As I take pains to stress over and over again, anecdotes are not something you can learn much from, no matter which way they point. But they can certainly indicate an interesting direction for serious and controlled research.
Indeed, many astrology researchers rallied to the task and planned experiments aimed at exactly this - to find out whether the cases mentioned above are the rule or the exception.
suitability tests
The idea is simple, and it can be done in two different directions:
From the customer's perspective: suppose you receive an accurate and specific astrological analysis prepared by a well-known and respected astrologer based on your exact birth details. But along with the description written for you, you receive two additional analyzes written for other people (born on a completely different date).
Can you identify your description from the three descriptions? Anyone who believes in astrology is convinced that there is no easier task than this. Even if there won't be 100% success among a large group of people who try it, surely success is evident beyond random guesswork. Obviously, isn't it?
From the astrologer's point of view: Let's say that respected and well-known astrologers get accurate birth data of some people. At the same time, they receive detailed character descriptions of each participant. Will the astrologers be able to match the birth dates with the character descriptions?
If there really is in astrology, we will expect an impressive ability to adapt on the part of the astrologers, and a great deal of agreement between them. There might be mistakes here and there, but you can definitely expect significantly better results from just guesswork. Obviously, isn't it?
And now we will see what came up in the results of studies that carried out exactly that.
Carlson's experiment
One of the most famous studies of this type was published by Carlson in the journal Nature in 1985. To avoid arguments (as much as possible) about the research and its results, Carlson worked closely with astrologers throughout. They were full partners in designing the experiment and approving its protocol. An organization for the study of astrology named NCGR He himself chose the best astrologers to participate in the experiment. The astrologers also announced in advance what percentage of success they expect. Carlson was extremely careful about the experimental procedures, in order to conduct it at the highest possible level (details In the original article). Two tests were performed as part of the study.
First Test: Astrological charts were prepared for 83 people based on their exact birth data. Each subject received 3 descriptions, one of them intended for him and two intended for others. The result: in only 28 cases out of the 83 did the subjects choose the description intended for them, just as would happen if they chose one of the 3 descriptions blindfolded. The astrologers expected at least 50% success (compared to the 34% actually achieved).
Second test: 116 subjects filled out standard psychological questionnaires and provided their birth data. Each astrologer received a personality description of three subjects as it emerged from the psychological questionnaires they filled out, and the date of birth of one of these three people. The task was to find out which of the three character descriptions matches the date of birth provided. The result: in only 40 of the 116 cases did the astrologers make a correct association, again, no better than a guess. Here, too, the astrologers expected a success rate of over 50%.
Carlson concludes: "Considerable efforts were made to ensure that the experiment would not be biased and that astrology would receive every chance of success. Even though we worked with some of the best astrologers in the country who were recommended by the astrologers themselves with whom we worked, even though we took into account every recommendation of the astrologers in planning the experiment, astrology failed to give the best results from a simple guess."
Of course, many objections and claims (not to mention personal attacks) did not take long to arrive. One of the lines of objection referred to the psychological personality questionnaires that were used, since if there is a flaw in their validity, interpretation or relevance, this would bias the results of the experiment to the detriment of astrology (although the astrologers who were involved in the design of the study had no complaints against their use, as I recall).
The McGrew and McFall experiment
To remove any doubt on the matter, stand up Additional researchers and decided to provide the astrologers with every piece of information that comes to their mind and is required to obtain a complete picture of each participant in the experiment. In the end, a questionnaire was built that contains 61 questions about details and areas in human life, such as: height, weight, hobbies, religious beliefs, personal skills and achievements, dates of major events in life, health problems, opinions about sexual authority and commitment, favorite colors, deaths in the family , and even two photos of each subject (front and side) - to diagnose an astrological body structure. In addition, at the request of the astrologers, the participants were chosen from as broad a range of occupations as possible and were all over the age of 30 (to ensure that their character traits were fully realized).
The Indiana Astrological Association (IFA) was involved in all stages of the design and execution of the study, and everything was done with its full approval. Everyone was full of enthusiasm for the experiment.
The course of the experiment was simple: 6 astrologers selected by the astrologers' organization as the most qualified for the task matched the descriptions of 23 subjects with their dates of birth. Another person who does not understand astrology tried to perform the same task, as a check.
The results: the astrologers did no better than guesswork. In fact, the person who is not into astrology was just as successful as the astrologer who excelled the most (3 shots out of 23). The degree of compatibility between the astrologers and themselves was also purely coincidental.
It should be emphasized that this task is easier than the challenge faced by astrologers in real life. Here you have to find a match against a small number of options, and not against the infinity of options, as happens in practical practice (think of an American question versus an open question). If astrologers failed to perform the easy task, it is difficult to expect that in real conditions the results will be better.
The results of course surprised the astrologers who were involved in the experiment and their colleagues in the profession. In the report that reviewed the project and published by the IFA, among other things, the embarrassing response appeared: "As in medicine, law and theology, astrology does not always provide quantifiable results, but it works nonetheless."
Rob Nanninga's experiment
An experiment in the same spirit was carried out in 1994 in the Netherlands. This time the task was much easier.
44 astrologers who volunteered for the experiment tried to match personality descriptions (whose details met the requirements of 8 experienced astrologers) to the birth dates of a total of seven subjects. A cash prize of about $2500 was promised to whoever could match all seven. Half of the astrologers expected to win the prize following a complete success. Only six expected to get fewer than four matches out of the seven.
And the results: complete coincidence in matching the descriptions to the details of the birth. Total coincidence in matching the choices of the different astrologers, even though they all got the exact same details. Half of the astrologers could not match any of the descriptions to the subjects! The most successful of all achieved 3 matches.
as you can see in the following data, the cumulative picture of dozens of studies of this type is exactly as described - nothing that deviates significantly from absolute guesswork.
Here are two more fun matching experiments:
Born killers-I
In 1979, Gauquelin published an advertisement in "Ici-Paris" offering a free horoscope. The recipients of the horoscope (who believed that it was written according to their birth data) were asked to say how appropriate the description was for them, in their opinion and in the opinion of their friends. Of the first 150 respondents, 94% said that the description was accurate, and so did 90% of their friends/family members.
Unfortunately they all got the same horoscope, that of Dr. Petiot - a notorious serial killer!
Born killers-II
A member of the Kansas Skeptical Society contacted several well-known astrologers in his area for professional advice. "I'm thinking of working with children and teenagers" he told them, and asked to get an opinion on his personality and professional guidance based on the birth data he gave them. But that guy was greedy for a note, and provided the astrologers with John Gacy's birth data. That Gacy was an extremely sadistic serial killer who received 12 death sentences and 21 life sentences for torturing and murdering 33 people and teenagers (I'll spare you the gruesome descriptions). In his spare time he would perform as a clown at children's birthday parties.
So what did the astrologers think after deciphering the birth chart of that serial killer? What was recommended to him (the impersonator) when he expressed a desire to work with children?
One well-known astrologer advised him to "calm down about regrets about things he could have done more in the past" he described a "lack of aggressiveness" and encouraged him to work with young people because he "could bring out their best programming".
Another astrologer complimented him because he was "born to serve people" and added: "In the past you used your energies very well, so in this life you have a lot to contribute. Your life will be very, very positive."
Other phrases he was told included: "Only your presence alone can provide other people with a real calming effect...", "You can serve as an example", "gentle, nice and considerate of others' needs". etc, etc...J
So how is everyone so convinced that astrology works, if it doesn't?
For the sake of the example, let's say that "Leos are warm, generous, independent, and hate being told what to do." You ask 100 Leos if this description fits them. 90 say yes, and the rest say it depends, but usually yes.
You keep investigating. Astrologers say (let's say) that a Mars-Neptune conjunction indicates a person who is idealistic and values such as consideration for others. You ask 100 people who have such a conjunction in their birth chart what they think of such a statement. 95 say it's true for them.
You continue your research. You are given an interpretation of your birth chart. The astrologer tells you things like, for example, that you have a good sense of humor, and that sometimes you are troubled by financial matters. Amazingly everything fits. You are now convinced that astrology works. You have no idea how it works, but it's a fact. You conclude that those who do not believe simply do not know what they are talking about. As for the astrologers - that's the end of the story. Millions of people have tested astrology in this way, and millions have become convinced that it works, without a doubt!
But scientists are not convinced. They know that we can fool ourselves as a result of the operation of many perceptual and thinking biases. They also know that the cure for this is simple: do what astrologers never do, that is, replace the data with control data. They also ask non-Leos and non-Mars-Neptune conjuncts how well the descriptions fit them. The results confirm their suspicions: while 90% of Leos thought the description suited them, so did 90% of other zodiac signs. and so'. Without such a comparison, the test is worthless. As for the scientists, that's the end of the story. At least until the evidence shows otherwise.
(Our tendency to get the impression that a general text that is true for every person is particularly suitable for us is called "Afker Forer" and we have already encountered it in the entry on Cold reading.)
These differences between the approaches to checking astrology are the ones that lead to very different conclusions: the "personal impression" approach, which is plagued by many perceptual biases, compared to the scientific approach - which cleans up these biases.
The power of "impression" is nicely demonstrated in the following video. Notice how amazed the people were at the accuracy of the personal opinion they received, until they discovered that…
It can also be argued that people simply do not know themselves, so they choose descriptions that are intended for others as much as those intended for them. This may be true, but it only reinforces the point that customer "impressions" of the power of astrology do not indicate anything and a half about its validity.
But maybe astrology just isn't accurate enough, yet. There are many different schools of astrology that each derive a different interpretation of the same birth data. It must be assumed that some of them are more accurate and some less so (it is not possible that they are all equally accurate, if there are contradictions between them). Perhaps it was this complexity that obscured the positive results in the experiments that were done? Maybe if only they had used a slightly different school of thought the results would have been better?
And until next time - a riddle for you readers: can anyone think of an experiment that can test whether there is truth in astrology, whatever its laws may be? That is, to make sure once and for all whether the state of the sky at the moment of birth is related to the character of the person, regardless of how one chooses to interpret the birth chart?
About experiments of this type - in the next entry.
64 תגובות
Here's what the astrology deniers don't bother to tell you (probably busy cherry picking):
Carlson presented the data as evidence that astrology is nothing more than coincidence, but later many biases and errors were discovered in the experiment, which eventually turned the wheel and the results were found to support astrology. Professor Sweitbert Ertel of the University of Göttingen (Germany) re-examined the findings of the Carlson test and found that astrologers could indeed rate authentic psychological profiles significantly higher than inauthentic profiles in a blind test to a statistically significant level. (P=0.037).
And by the way, you won't find Professor Ertel on Wikipedia, just like you won't find Michel Goquelin, because Wikipedia's skeptical guerillas have downgraded their entries for fear of being found to have done tests that support astrology.
In addition, going to an astrologer and lying to him about the birth chart is not a test but a fraud. He who is unable to see this is nothing more than a pseudo-skeptic.
All the attempts to build a solid case against astrology are crumbling one by one, from Geoffrey Dean's artifacts and his ghost tests to the skeptics who tampered with data in order to sabotage the replication of Goquelin's test, the Mars effect. It is sad to see that all these frauds and lies were done in the name of science, but in the end it turns out that those who are trying to build the case against astrology are pseudo-scientists themselves and, as mentioned, are busy picking cherries.
An article by a person who only knows how to get paid for his words. After all, concepts like astrology and horoscopes... have ratings and their use will bring traffic to his site and this will increase the amount of Google's payment for publishing the sponsored ads on his unnecessary site..))).....I wish you a more worthy livelihood.
Yuval - answers to your questions - in the next article in the series -
https://www.hayadan.org.il/astrology-in-a-trail-4-0012113/
And see also the first response of astrology supporter Avi G. which presents the things that are mentioned in the textbooks, according to him: https://www.hayadan.org.il/astrology-in-a-trail-4-0012113/#comment-318934
Man's character and traits are related to his mind, which is the source of his behavior. The question is, will two people who are born at the same time, resemble their features completely or almost completely? But a person's traits are genetic from his parents, how is this possible?
Could it be that there is a partial connection between a person's trait and the state of the sky at the time of his birth, which determines his character apart from genetics?
Something to think about.
I am? did i fold 🙂
Gilad, don't fold!
Don't compromise, unless you have a strong Libra in your birth chart.
Don't be a rag, unless you have an Aquarius star.
And seriously: if all I wanted was agreement to my opinions (which are very fluid) I would not visit here but on the websites of astrologers, numerologists, fortune tellers in coffee and just being cloudy.
So Yuval,
In light of your last two answers, it seems that there is a lot of agreement between us. For some reason I had a different impression before.
Again, I am generally interested in making the distinction between "reality" and "meaning".
Here - I was really short 🙂
monument,
Although I doubt the success of your articles in swaying an opinion, but if it were up to me to write them, I would probably write like you.
monument,
You write long and I read short. Please understand and forgive me if I am not able to answer all your questions.
I classify your questions into two main matters. One, the "scientific" facts; The second, the human nature that allows the existence of such beliefs.
Recently I have been working on writing the stories of two families of priests who have been well preserved within the Jewish people but have been well preserved outside of it as well. Such preservation requires a symbiosis between the general human population seeking a "meaningful life" and the ability of the members of these families to provide such meaning, real or imagined. In every generation, in the ancient world and today, there is a limited group of people who are considered to have wisdom and knowledge. Whether these are Danny-Shechtmans or whether they are Amnon-Yitzchak, their opinion is considered by large populations. Science helps reveal the truth and religion gives a feeling/illusion of meaning to life, and between these two we are all scattered.
You ask how on earth someone developed astrology?
When a large community expects the output of a priest, and the priest knows what is expected of him, he connects one to another and receives results that on the one hand are accepted by the opinion of his holy audience because they unquestioningly believe his every word, and on the other hand he builds them in advance as irrefutable and therefore their status Strong.
You ask, did our ancestors pay attention to advanced statistical analyzes regarding every feature and every gram of heaven until they found the correlations that really work?!
Our "ancestors" are nothing but those charlatan priests from the previous question. To say that they were diligent about advanced statistical analyzes would be "a little" exaggerated. At most they did limited reviews to ensure they didn't just talk nonsense. The blind faith of the population did the rest.
You ask if I am claiming that astrological "knowledge" was obtained by channeling with advanced beings of light or if some angel dictated it.
Surprising as it may sound, the truly ignorant masses believed that the priests had direct access to the gods.
You are making it difficult: after all, the requirement to prove validity is only retrospective, but in order to develop the Torah, it was necessary to prove validity in the original.
And I believe that such obstacles can be easily overcome with the help of the flock's drive and unreserved faith in the spiritual shepherd.
You rightly say that these are huge blocks of "knowledge" that no one knows how they were brought to the world.
So here I brought an option to the source of the wink.
You regret that they always hide under the miracle phrase "ancient knowledge".
me too.
My hope is that the way I present things will speak to a certain segment of the population.
Surveys (abroad) show that about 25% of people declare that they believe in astrology.
I assume that another similar percentage thinks that this is nonsense, and that leaves us with many "floating voices", who are open to receiving information from one direction or another.
If I were to argue, I assume that this would seal many people and make them fortify their faith, even if weak, and even strengthen it.
In addition to presenting things in a very matter-of-fact manner, I explain at every opportunity what are the factors of bias that make us convinced and believe in things, even if they are not true. I hope that this will open up another, very principled point of view that will penetrate the general public consciousness.
Just for example - getting to know the Forer effect, the same basic experiment where everyone receives the same horoscope analysis (of a murderer or just a collection of general sentences) and is amazed by the level of compatibility they find in it - this alone is worth a lot in my opinion.
R. H.,
Harini admits the facts but not the guilt. I did say these difficult words, but I prefaced them with the sentence "In any case, it will be difficult for you to convince the followers that they are wrong, and you do not need to convince the opponents that they are right." And by and large, the believer will continue to believe and the unbeliever will continue to freeze. You, obviously, and I are also unbelievers. There are also commenters here who believe. None of us is leaving his position following this article, and in my opinion this is how things are in the world outside of the "Hidan". In this you disagree with me, and even I do not sign this opinion with both hands. This dispute can, and perhaps should, be clarified through a public opinion poll. And if an article of this type does influence the followers of the New Age to throw away their delusional beliefs, perhaps there is still hope to return to the benefit of additional parasitic populations whose matter is discussed in detail in other articles on this site.
And if not, then all Gilad Diamant has to offer us in his beautiful articles is a glimpse into the world of this faith and nothing else - and that alone is of considerable value and entitles him to great "right power".
jubilee,
In connection with your words, I would like to raise a rather strong argument in my opinion, which also came up here at some point:
If things are so elusive, and in order to test astrology you have to isolate a trait, test it on huge samples of populations, and only then find out if the specific relationship is valid or not, and astrology talks about the entire human life and character, end to end, meaning hundreds or thousands of such traits And as you said, it is full of internal contradictions that only the hand of an artist can interpret and bridge over, if that is the case -
How the hell did someone develop astrology?
Did our ancestors diligently perform advanced statistical analyzes regarding each feature and each gram of sky until they found the correlations that really work?! It is clear that such a thing is not possible.
And as evidence - in the last decades, debates arose around Goklin's findings (soon to be published) regarding the Mars effect. For years and years, researchers from one side or the other have carried out statistical studies regarding a very small group of claims, and have not been able to reach a decision. And this is in an age where statistics are developed, computers help with data processing, etc.
How did the ancients do it?
Or are you claiming that astrological "knowledge" was obtained by channeling with advanced beings of light?
Or did someone dictate it?
This argument is valid for any comprehensive "occult theory" of any kind (palm reading, numerology, health diagnosis methods, etc.) - how could it possibly have been developed at all?
After all, the requirement to prove validity is only retrospective, but in order to develop the Torah, it was necessary to prove validity in the original.
Unlike mathematical and scientific developments, which each student can carry out on their own and prove how they arrived at things, here we are talking about huge blocks of "knowledge" that no one knows how they were brought into the world.
They always hide under the miracle phrase "ancient knowledge".
jubilee,
https://www.hayadan.org.il/astrology-in-a-trail-3-001211/#comment-318838
you say:
"It is not clear to me what contribution articles of this type make to us and what exactly the scientists who refute the already far-fetched stories achieve."
I really don't agree with you. I believe that many sensible people who read the horoscope out of habit and think that if everyone believes then there must be something in it, if they read these articles they will be convinced that there is actually nothing in these things.
Against the waves of the New Age, alternative medicine and other things based solely on "emotion", "gut feelings", "intuitions", "connection", "enlightenment" there must also come rational articles that really and truly test things with scientific criteria. Therefore, kudos to Gilad who bothers and collects them.
I'll give you an example, a fact that rather surprised me that appeared that his last blog post about the total unreliability of stock market analysts. My belief stemmed from a gut feeling that there are wizard analysts who can predict the stock market and it's probably not her. The one who really bets is the only one who influences her, everyone else gambles like in a casino.
monument,
You threw a heavy gauntlet at me. I will still try to pick it up.
First, I don't see astrology as a scientific tool but as a means to spark conversation. As such, there is nothing to refute it. Secondly, the things you brought up in this article are not about astrology at all, but about astrologers, and a distinction should be made between the two.
An old friend of mine got hooked on astrology somewhere almost 40 years ago. I told him "Manny! What is this belief for you?" (That's right in these words) and he answered me "Evil! You can't rule out a subject if you don't know it. First you will learn astrology and only then will you come to rule out". It was an even heavier glove than yours, but at the time I was young and sturdy and idle - so I picked it up and now I am an astrologer. I did a lot of birth charts and found friends (mostly female, by the way) who enjoyed talking about this nonsense. The biggest scientific statement I made in the field is that astrology is a very good tool for starting conversations and bringing people closer together. I also tried to link between the season of the year in which a person was born and character traits that develop in him, but I did not reach any clear results. I started to add more and more heavenly bodies to the equation, but I got tired before I included them all. Although I didn't find it, that doesn't mean I refuted it. The rebuttal should accept a clear claim such as "the eye color of a Gemini born is blue" and go over a reasonably sized sample, of those born all year round, that would contain Swedes and Sudanese of similar weight. A claim such as "day-signs are extroverts and night-signs are shy" can be interpreted in different ways and is not actually measurable or rebuttable.
As mentioned, in my eyes astrology is seen as a tool for developing a conversation and nothing else. You can start a conversation with a sentence like "As a Cancer, you must be very sensitive and introverted" and get a response that indicates exactly the opposite, and continue from there while dismissing "You managed to overcome the typical hypersensitivity. Well done". Because of the introduction of many heavenly bodies into the equation, ones that contradict each other, there are no definite determinations in astrology and therefore there is nothing to disprove it. It refutes itself from the inside and thus guarantees itself from the refutations from the outside. To put it to the test of adequate refutation, it must be broken down into defined factors and a correct sample population must be selected for each individual factor. For example, in the eye color sample it is impossible to sample Africans and Scandinavians together.
jubilee,
When I look for examples and illustrations of things, I avoid quoting things that I find mocking in some way, or superficial. For example, I do enjoy Penn @ teller's "Bullshit" episodes, but I don't bring them because it's exactly this mocking, and somewhat demagogic, attitude that I don't like.
It is not wise to bring the most delusional and stupid example and try to disprove an entire field with it.
That's why I brought only serious studies and researchers (in my opinion).
Furthermore - some of them were astrologers in the past, who "went out with the question" without a choice - I will expand the talk a little on this personal aspect in the last article.
The psychologist Eysenck who was mentioned in the second article, I think, also came with a very sympathetic approach to astrology.
What particularly convinced me that there is no dawn for things, is precisely the fact that no matter what background the researchers came from, they all came to the same conclusions.
I recommend that you look at this site - and after a few consecutive days that are required to read the material there, tell me if anything there seems to you to be unserious, biased, biased, etc.
http://www.astrology-and-science.com/hpage.htm
And now I ask you: How do you think it is correct to refute the determinations of astrology, which we will not do in these articles?
monument,
I accept with reservations your statement that "any attempt to find a connection between astrology and reality has come to nothing", and this is only because sweeping generalizations are not acceptable to me (except in mathematics). As the lovers of astrology tilt the results in their favor, it is not impossible that fools do the same. Unfortunately, I don't have access to all the YouTube links brought here, but in the few that I was able to watch, I saw a tone that was not entirely relevant. For example, I could not ignore the disdain shown, which makes me suspect the authors of the articles as being prejudiced. I absolutely do not claim that astrology is correct. But it is not correct to refute her assertions.
Israel:
There is a joke about not being willing to be accepted into a club that is willing to accept people like him.
I wouldn't want a woman in a relationship where you have to start a conversation about her luck.
No one underestimates the importance of emotion, but when logic is not activated - the one who is hurt, in the end, is the emotion.
The drugs also "work great" when you look at them point by point without considering the long-term consequences.
The emotion is always activated - in everyone - or at least in everyone who feels they want to read here.
People should not be preached to use emotion because it is obvious and everyone does it.
The importance of logic and rational thinking is not so obvious to some people (probably because of self-deception, but that goes beyond the scope of the current discussion) and this website aims to encourage them in this direction.
Girl, what's the argument about?
Did you not read the article?
Haven't you seen Michael's YouTube?
It is clear that the whole business does not meet any scientific criteria.
So does that mean it will convince someone who believes in astrology?
No.
Why?
Because for them the business works great.
Have you ever tried to start a conversation with a girl at a bar about the Higgs boson? On dark mass? About bacterial cultures?
Much better to ask what her luck is.
And neither my father C, I am not arrogant. I believe that you communicate more to the field of emotion, and less to the field of logic, and I do not believe that B has priority over A.
In my opinion, to say any serious word about astrology after this article, sins against the truth. Unless someone doubts the veracity of the data presented in it.
jubilee,
I agree that the reality we live in is very complex, and it is difficult to know the "truth".
(The comment was written by someone who called himself "Conspirton", who had many more things to say, and I had many things to answer him).
At the same time, there are things that can be known, if you check enough. This is the basic premise of science, and it has proven quite fruitful over the past few centuries.
I really don't like the attitude of "it's impossible to reach the absolute truth, so let's stop trying at all, let's dive into our illusions, it's all the same anyway".
This is a defeatist and lazy attitude, which stems mainly (in my opinion) from an attempt to respond to the basic psychological fears and needs of the person facing life.
For me it's saying "everything is regrettable" from the other direction.
There is an external reality, even if our ability to perceive it or reach it is fundamentally limited.
Not everything is equal in its correctness.
And in our case - every attempt to find a connection between astrology and reality came to naught.
So it is probably less correct than Newton's laws for example.
Abi C,
I read your response addressed to me and ending with the words "remorse in Reta".
I say this so you don't say I don't relate.
monument,
A random quote from a comment on your blog:
http://sharpthinkingblog.wordpress.com/about/#comment-55
"In the complex reality in which we live and with a huge amount of information and disinformation, it is simply impossible to draw a conclusion - and this is the conclusion of the truly honest man!"
the last camila,
I sound impolite through no fault of my own. In my response, which has been delayed for almost nine hours, I thanked you
https://www.hayadan.org.il/astrology-in-a-trail-3-001211/#comment-318816
So Gilad calmed down from the eye of astrology equal to science (Mead Ein)
jubilee,
I think that distinctions between concepts are an important thing in life, which can benefit many, even those who "believe".
I am quoting a sentence from things I wrote here ( http://wp.me/P1K6uX-iK ) on "sharp thinking":
"Sharp thinking will help us distinguish better between opinions and facts, between inner meaning and outer reality,
Between personal experience and impression and established knowledge, between illusions and wishful thinking and things as they really are."
monument
R. H.,
do not ask. Since I am writing about the priests I had to specialize a little in their working methods. The main part of my astrological specialization is matches according to the position of the moon in the birth chart...
There is nothing to refute in what is not scientific and does not claim to be so. Astrology is no longer considered a science. It is not even a theory but only a night of stories. It is simply a form of art (of the folk alternative psychology type) or an entertaining artistic practice. From this point of view it is like any spiritual-heavenly pursuit: either you believe in it or you don't.
If there are those who try to claim that astrology is science, I believe that they are charlatans or simply do not know what science is. Instead of burdening themselves and putting their "scientific theory" to simple tests, they burden the examiners. There is no point in arguing with them because (sorry for the corny joke) they will drag you into their stupidity and there, on their home turf, they will defeat you. In any case, it will be difficult for you to convince the followers that they are wrong, and you do not need to convince the opponents that they are right.
Apart from the kind glimpse into the Sitra after, I am not clear what contribution articles of this type contribute to us and what exactly the scientists who refute the already far-fetched stories achieve.
R.H
Listen
After 35 years of meddling with astrology, even though my profession is mechanical engineering, I have not come across this situation where after an astrological consultation meeting (in the evening during free time) with hundreds of people over the years there is a disappointment of the client or myself, because if it were then I would put astrology aside and not refer to that
By the way, I don't see an artistic connection to astrology.
Camellia
I wrote that astrology is rational out of my understanding that everything in reality where two people deal together for a common issue and reach a common agreement on the issue then from their point of view is rational
I did not find anywhere that something that is rational must be objective.
jubilee
Where did you find a source that claims astrology is a science.
It is science that claims that its truth must be proven and there is no problem with that. But if science wants to prove it
To refer to something as if it is claimed to be harta barta, so it is ridiculous that science is messing with harta barta.
Abi C,
https://www.hayadan.org.il/astrology-in-a-trail-3-001211/#comment-318791
I guess you saw my unhappiness and frustration in the stars or you also read minds and communicate?
In any case, I and others tried to develop a substantive discussion with you, but you evade and evade. What will convince you of the correctness or incorrectness of astrology? Is there such a test? I already told you before that I wished if you could tell from 20 dates when a person with certain qualities was born I would believe in astrology.
jubilee,
You surprise every time. Astrology consultant? Beautiful. In any case, I do not agree with you that there are no refutations to astrology, on the contrary, these are exactly what Gilad Diamant's articles deal with. The question of correctness is a simple and clear scientific question and the answer to it is imposed on us regardless of our desires (and this was said by Yayahu Leibovitch, not me). At the moment the answer is that there is no support for the astrological theory.
Last Camila, thank you ♥
This mainly points to the weakness of the individual in the herd and the weakness of the herd system in general. I have long noticed that in the struggle for survival, revealing the truth is not always the preferred doctrine.
Michael,
I do not find anything wrong with a proper scientific work. I only point out with regret that the audience for which these things are intended is one that does not know how to properly appreciate a scientific work and for that reason it has to be presented to them in popular clothing.
And of course, Yuval - even in the article we are commenting on there are studies that are not pseudo-scientific.
jubilee:
And also what Dawkins shows in his video is excellent confirmation for the claim that it doesn't work.
I don't know what fault you find in his experiment (and as he points out - many like it have been done).
This is not a pseudo-scientific work - this is a highly scientific work of which you have only seen a small sample.
jubilee,
In short, the video elegantly shows how the subjective perception of Avi c. So fond can be misleading to the point of believing in the absurd. In the video Darren Brown is shown performing a simple test in which several people are asked to write down their date of birth on a page and then they receive a report which they are told has been personalized for them based on the information they provided. When people are asked how well they feel the report matches their personality, the participants usually report a high match (I don't remember all the numbers, but it was mostly in the range between 85 and 95 percent accuracy). Increased to make a number of participants who actually reported specific and completely accurate shots, another participant reported that she recognized herself in the text as soon as she started reading it. After that, the participants were asked to pass the reports among themselves and to their embarrassment, they then found out that it was the exact same wording that had been compiled months before. The "experiment" was demonstrated on several groups from different countries and it is quite instructive to see how good people are at subjectively convincing themselves that the reality they are experiencing is real even though objectively it is utter nonsense.
My father c. He suffers from the same blindness, but unfortunately he is so locked in the same blindness that he is willing to give up any rational criticism just to preserve his same subjective belief. He was invited at least twice to suggest a way to test whether astrology actually "works" but as expected he ignored these suggestions. I am sure that Gilad and others here will be happy to help my father c. To plan a controlled experiment that can decide whether astrology really works but I will be very surprised if his reaction will be different from before.
My father c.
Our ability to differentiate between rational understanding and mere belief, which can be belief in something that is true but can also often be belief in something that is clearly wrong, relies exclusively on the scientific method. In fact, all of us, and even you, use the scientific method in our day-to-day life when you come to solve all sorts of small things in your life, for example when something breaks down. You do this almost automatically and without calling it the fancy name "the scientific method" but that is exactly what you are doing. You encounter a problem, come up with a hypothesis or several hypotheses and conduct a test. This happens even with completely trivial things like wondering where your glasses are, or why the light bulb stopped working. The amazing thing is that in certain areas of your life (sometimes areas that are much more serious than the little glitches we all encounter every day) you abandon rational thinking and adopt blind faith. Your subjective reality completely fails regarding the effect of gravity, regarding your ability to survive cyanide inhalation and in many other cases where the objective reality will immediately show you that it is one and only and completely clear reality. A subjective reality that is fundamentally different from the objective reality can only exist in those cases where the result of the experience does not result in death or injury or some other overwhelming response. In such cases you are not immediately harmed by adopting a wrong perception, and even if you are harmed (financially for example) it can always be attributed to any number of other reasons. It is precisely to identify such cases that we have the scientific method (the same method as mentioned that even you use on a daily basis and with great success). From what you've written so far it sounds like you believe astrology works even though there's no way to critically test it just because this belief makes you feel good about yourself (and maybe makes you money). To this, Gilad already answered that the articles do not deal with the subjective feelings that the practice of astrology gives some people, as Daren's experiment shows that subjective feelings are completely real, even when they are complete objective nonsense. You wrote in one of the comments above that astrology is a rational theory. If it is indeed such, it is clear that its validity can be examined rationally, therefore we return to the only question that I think is interesting here: would you be willing to perform a rational experiment that examines the validity of the Torah, which you call rational?
The British Channel 4 is more sophisticated than us. On the other hand, I was able to watch the second link.
As a rule, both supporters and opponents alike do not do their job faithfully. Both sides are subject to the constraints of popularization and present pseudo-scientific work. As I demand from astrologers to bring valid arguments, I also expect such from the deniers.
On the other hand, as an astrologer consultant, your faithful servant has had quite a few successes*, and I do not like sawing off the branch I am sitting on.
-----
* Simply, I quote to my "victims" astrology books they already know, and they happily agree.
jubilee:
Try this link instead.
It's the same video and maybe here it will work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haP7Ys9ocTk
Besides, it's also worth watching
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlMiKrwCRQ0
Michael,
Unfortunately, I cannot access the link you provided, as it is blocked for surfers in the UK 🙁
Why doesn't anyone say anything about the link I provided here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/astrology-in-a-trail-3-001211/#comment-318761
Here is an example of a very nice test for this nonsense.
By the way - I have a friend that I have already mentioned here who also believes in all the conspiracy theories and all the "New Age" issues (this is the new name given by the nonsense lovers to the darkness of the Middle Ages).
Yesterday he again managed to drag me to some caller and I again proved to him that this caller is also talking nonsense.
It started like with Avi C - she too was not ready to put her pretensions to an objective test.
Somehow I still managed to knock her down and make her say things that my friends knew were not true.
It didn't work.
He told me that they are not always right and that maybe this particular caller is not that good and gathered delusional arguments from the thresher and the winery in order not to get the desired conclusion.
Avi C, thanks with reservation.
I'm guessing you meant to compliment me, and for that I thank you.
However, I do not claim that astrology is correct. In my opinion, this practice is not science, because it does not allow refutation tests. At most I see it as art only.
Hi Yuval
You are in the right direction of thinking
You may be the few here on the site that your rational approach to life is honest.
R.H
So this is what you have to say - because if you tease then you are what a hero is (the level of the little boy)
Your frustration, sir, is that it hurts you that treating the spirit of the dead (astrology) is more relevant and useful
What are you doing?
If she was happy in life she would not speak in this sarcastic style.
One day you will sit on my couch...
monument
Now I understand you - you and your ilk insist on a quarter circle (seeing a circle and thinking a square) and therefore why use so many words. Astrology can be said to be equal to regret (according to Arie)
Just remember that reality is subjective as long as science has not yet gained dictatorial power (because there is a fear that science will behave like the Inquisition and dictate how to live based on self-interested considerations).
The astrological symbols is a language and concepts that allow the astrologer to talk with the client.
Gilad, those like you who say that there is no connection between astrological knowledge and reality are not saying this from a first-hand source, but from a source that reads non-rational studies that try to delegitimize rational Torah (astrology).
The astrologer's meeting with the client is for the client's need and not the astrologer's. Like the need for every third or second person in the US to have a psychologist to (perhaps) maintain temporary sanity.
Gilad, isn't it about time that you pay some attention to what I write and try to understand what I wrote. Because you keep locking on your articles without checking what an astrologer who deals with it says.
And better Aries luck? Just impulsive. You should have invested in an Intel flash drive
R.H
Kingston is a Pisces. slippery and volatile. Try USB from Aries.
Regardless of how rigorous this art is, the tests presented here are not free of bias. For example, the influence of the environment was not brought up. There is no point in comparing two people from different socio-economic backgrounds. It's like comparing, contrasting, between cats and mice. A proper comparison should be made between different people in the same nuclear family or between different students who studied for several years in the same class.
Abi C,
https://www.hayadan.org.il/astrology-in-a-trail-3-001211/#comment-318757
Who is frustrated? Maybe the one who found out after 35 years that he was dealing in vanity? that he attributes traits to people and predicts the future based on completely unfounded things?
You are like a doctor who has been treating the dead for 35 years.
Israel,
There is also no faith in technology. How come Kingston's USB flash memory card suddenly stops working after two months???
Gilad, leave astrology, what about psychology?
Do you have any research that shows if there is truth in psychology?
I only believe in technology.
June - nice thought. About that next time.
Daughter, scientists are also people with human weaknesses, and they too fall into the trap of faith from time to time.
Avi-G. Again - I am convinced that many people who come to a good astrologer, feel that they have received full value for their money and time, leave encouraged, full of new insights into their lives, etc.
So much for subjective astrology. I talked about it at the beginning of the first article, precisely to dissolve this argument and prevent this debate. Read again what was said there.
What I claim, based on all the studies that have been done and cited here (and will be cited) - that there is no connection between the symbols of astrology and reality.
What it means?
This means that even if you randomly mix up all the sentences in the astrology books - treat qualities that today are attributed to Mars to Jupiter, for example, replace the meanings of all the illusions between the planets, mix up the zodiac signs, and make any change you can think of - the meeting with the astrologer will be just as effective!
Not that it's bad. It will still be effective. No less than today.
Just what,
There is no connection between all astrological "knowledge" and reality.
That's all I say.
The face-to-face meeting with the astrologer is required to enhance the effectiveness and the impression due to the use of the cold reading methods for Minahan (you already know this article). Thus, when things are said interactively, there are many opportunities to direct what is said according to the information the customer provides, and according to his reactions to what has been said so far.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeqnFmJzQnI
Tell me, Father C:
Do you have a principled objection to winning millions of dollars?
Why don't you run to receive the awards that you (with the help of those who work for you) are so sure you meet the criteria for receiving?
Gentlemen of the scientists
Dear Gilad, I am full of admiration for your motivation to prove to everyone that astrology is nonsense.
I am very glad that you presented us with the studies on this matter, because these studies further strengthen the claim
Whoever tried to carry out the research is guilty of the simple truth that astrology is a tool for people with question marks regarding decisions to continue on their path due to difficulties in understanding their current situation and is not related to empirical science that examines a situation according to some formula or physical law.
In order to diagnose a person's condition, you have to sit with them and not write to them based on dry data. An important part of the diagnostic phase is the intuitive ability of the astrologer.
Astrology schematically divides the influences that affect the person and they must be paid attention to in the diagnosis phase and the division is 60% the symbolism of the map structure must be considered 20% the effects of parents' education and their genes. 20% the effects of the environment over the years and the astrologer must consider this by combining the intuitive ability on the one hand and the discernment of the entire system from a professional point of view on the other.
You can continue to do research from here until further notice, but they have no value related to astrology, they are of great value to those who are comfortable leaning on them in order to calm their mind that, God forbid, science is being stolen from them.
Gentlemen, forget about it, astrology is not a science, it is a few degrees beyond that, so it is nice to have fun on the science website with a number of friends whose sarcastic reaction hurts and frustrates the city.
It seems to me that you are confusing scientists with politicians. The threshold for reason in politicians is lower.
You can do a simple experiment - find a number of people who were born at exactly the same time, and do a psychological analysis on all of them. When it turns out that their results are completely different, it will be proof that there is no connection between the arrangement of the stars in the sky at a certain moment and the character of a person born at that time. You don't even need to talk to an astrologer for this, but astrology will not be able to overcome this basic claim.
To my father B.,
Every time I read comments like yours, I laugh to myself. and why? Because in my opinion you think that all (or at least most) scientists think like you. What else? The scientists are a significant part of the visitors to the astrologers. Every time one of them experiences a personal crisis such as: a woman who ran off with another lecturer, or a friend/partner who disappeared with the money and more, they realize that they have no control over life, and at a loss for advice they look for the answer from anyone who can help them. They always want to keep secrets, but to their credit it can be said that within six months or so, someone from their family or one of their friends, also finds the way to an astrologer, while telling how much that so-and-so understood new things about his life.
Try and check with your friends: how many of them have been with which mystic? Answers will range from: I just wanted to see what it was to it was just for fun. None of them will tell you about personal emotional/mental distress. I wonder why?
Tam,
I don't know what studies Gilad will see, but I would think of a comparison of children born on the same day in the same place and some of whom emigrated or moved shortly after their birth to the opposite hemisphere.
For example, children who were born in Norway in the winter and grew up there compared to those who moved to Australia, South America or Africa near their birth.
Tam, there are very interesting studies on the subject. On another occasion I will write about it. There seems to be a connection to the seasons.
You should read the headlines in the last few days and understand what it is like when fanatics threaten their environment.
Obviously, freedom of thought also allows false thoughts, but when someone with a false thought hurts me because of that thought, I am allowed to defend myself.
Spring.,
"Threatening their environment"... didn't you exaggerate a bit?... What scares you so much?
Are there people who think differently than you?
Freedom of thought is not only for scientists. Every person has the freedom to think and base opinions different from the ones you hold.
I would go for physical characteristics, not psychological ones,
The psychological characteristics can be chattered and smeared endlessly, and it all depends on the creativity of the interpreter.
To verify this in physical characteristics, the maneuvering interval is much shorter.
Although even physical factors such as diseases can be manipulated by the placebo effect
You can take for example: dimples for those born with lucky luck, and check it on a statistical group regardless of astrology.
And as a sign of success, the characteristic must be above average in children of this luck.
Excellent series of articles. I really enjoy reading, keep it up!
Since time immemorial, these things have seemed to me to be complete nonsense, except for one intuition that I do not know that there is a reference to:
It seems to me (I haven't checked) that the first months after birth are very significant in our development. This can differentiate people born in the fall and their first half of the year was in the winter to people born in the spring and their first half of the year was in the summer.
sounds logical? Yes
Does it stand the test of reality? need to check
What do they say?
Every summer during book week I search with tweezers for scientific literature and am horrified each time by the length of the shelves where the literature of regret is sold (astrology, crystals, chakras, trot cards, numerology, wild psychology and so on and on and on).
To this we can add the fundamentalism, anxiety, obscurity and stupidity in Arab countries and here. And another interesting statistic from the enlightened world: close to 45% of US residents (!) believe in creation by God and do not accept Darwin's idea of evolution!
How is this possible in the second decade of the twenty-first century? What will? Where is this world going?
Probably not because the proponents of the theory of the flying spaghetti monster do not threaten their environment like the proponents of astrology and other old nonsense.
I assume that after the series of articles on astrology, a series will follow
of studies on the spaghetti monster
Shit, the million dollar is gone. Returning to the corn stand.
"You will see the stars in vain".
Everyone is a thief.
Interesting article to read and quite entertaining, thanks. And yet, I made an astrological prediction now for the human race and it turned out that the human race will continue to believe in astrology (this is according to Adam and Eve's birth chart, of course).