Astrology is only accurate in that everything it says is vague and easily interpretable in multiple ways.
A teacher did an experiment where he handed his class custom astrology reports based on their birthdate, and asked them to rate how well they fit each of them. Everyone gave it a high rating, and said it was very accurate. He had them pass the paper to a different student, and everyone laughed because everyone got the exact same astrology report.
Certainly sometimes, not always. I was convinced to get a “proper” chart done, and the results were more specific and accurate than I expected. Certainly not vague newspaper predictions. I’m not going to claim the whole practice is authentic, but like I said I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out to have some actual correspondence to some unknown tangible cause unrelated to the stars.
That’s not the basis of a good prediction. Imagine flipping a coin. You can “guess” the answer with 50% accuracy by just choosing heads each time.
But that’s cheating you say? You could also get 50% accuracy by just flipping another coin and using that choice. Or just choosing the opposite that just appeared (heads, tails, heads, etc.). That’s not good enough for a prediction.
Once more, not saying the stars have anything to do with, except that they’re in the sky in a particular time of year. If astrology is based on anything, it’s probably the effects of the seasons.
So because facebook can place ads that are vague and general, does that mean that they also have some sort of scientific correlation to predicting the future? Yes right? i mean, it could be true, that your computer is reading your mind and putting this up there, your horoscope? also created by your laptop reading your brainwaves that are bouncing off the cats sonar dish outside, its possible.
We’ve wandered pretty far from the topic. None of that follows from anything I said.
Nonetheless, are those hypotheses possible? Sure. Likely? Probably not. But there’s a chasm of difference between “extremely unlikely” and “absolutely false”. Understanding the limitations of your knowledge, both incidental and fundamental, is central to successful scientific inquiry.
yea im not surprised that someone who puts vested interest in astrology charts also says “you know what, maybe” to your laptop reading your brain and advertising to you.
Nope, astrologers are masters at making vague answers sound specific. But they are still vague and interpretable in multiple ways, even in your proper chart.
No, that’s all astrology is. Whenever it’s been put to the test it has been found to have no supernatural or real predictive power. Just vague statements, and reader bias.
Testing is the important part. Imo, the reason astrology persists is because of the lottery effect. One person out of 12 gets the perfect reading so promotes astrology as working when they were just lucky.
Certainty is unscientific and illogical. The scientific method cannot prove anything. It simply tests hypotheses to develop models. Every model is wrong, but some are more useful than others. Conflating the discovery of a useful model with absolute certainty isn’t science, it’s scientific fundamentalism, a cancer that eats your brain.
Nothing can be said scientifically about the truth or falsity of any claim. Science can only day that the evidence gathered in a particular experimental setup is consistent or inconsistent with a hypothesis.
I’m a research chemist, and have been in the sciences for the last 15 years.
And science can test the hypothesis that astrology is accurate in various ways, and has shown time and time again that astrology is no better than random chance in its accuracy.
People have been trying to prove evolution is wrong since it was first posited, yet all evidence just further demonstrates it is the correct explanation for life.
Models aren’t wrong by definition. Incomplete perhaps, but if a theory is able to accurately predict the world around us then it is still a good theory. Our theory of gravity can let us calculate the exact position of stellar bodies for millennia ahead, and has been consistently shown to be accurate.
Astrology is only accurate in that everything it says is vague and easily interpretable in multiple ways.
A teacher did an experiment where he handed his class custom astrology reports based on their birthdate, and asked them to rate how well they fit each of them. Everyone gave it a high rating, and said it was very accurate. He had them pass the paper to a different student, and everyone laughed because everyone got the exact same astrology report.
Mystery Hunters flashback out of nowhere. My man Doubting Dave did this experiment.
Certainly sometimes, not always. I was convinced to get a “proper” chart done, and the results were more specific and accurate than I expected. Certainly not vague newspaper predictions. I’m not going to claim the whole practice is authentic, but like I said I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out to have some actual correspondence to some unknown tangible cause unrelated to the stars.
That’s not the basis of a good prediction. Imagine flipping a coin. You can “guess” the answer with 50% accuracy by just choosing heads each time.
But that’s cheating you say? You could also get 50% accuracy by just flipping another coin and using that choice. Or just choosing the opposite that just appeared (heads, tails, heads, etc.). That’s not good enough for a prediction.
I’m not trying to sell anyone on astrology here. All I said was sometimes it’s so vague as to to apply to anyone, but not always.
If it isn’t vague, it isn’t astrology.
They are just reading your body language and things they find online about you.
The location flaming balls of gas are have no influence on your life. Except for the sun.
It was automated so it wasn’t that.
Once more, not saying the stars have anything to do with, except that they’re in the sky in a particular time of year. If astrology is based on anything, it’s probably the effects of the seasons.
So because facebook can place ads that are vague and general, does that mean that they also have some sort of scientific correlation to predicting the future? Yes right? i mean, it could be true, that your computer is reading your mind and putting this up there, your horoscope? also created by your laptop reading your brainwaves that are bouncing off the cats sonar dish outside, its possible.
We’ve wandered pretty far from the topic. None of that follows from anything I said.
Nonetheless, are those hypotheses possible? Sure. Likely? Probably not. But there’s a chasm of difference between “extremely unlikely” and “absolutely false”. Understanding the limitations of your knowledge, both incidental and fundamental, is central to successful scientific inquiry.
yea im not surprised that someone who puts vested interest in astrology charts also says “you know what, maybe” to your laptop reading your brain and advertising to you.
Nope, astrologers are masters at making vague answers sound specific. But they are still vague and interpretable in multiple ways, even in your proper chart.
Oh, sorry, I didn’t realize you were omniscient. My mistake. Have a good day.
No, that’s all astrology is. Whenever it’s been put to the test it has been found to have no supernatural or real predictive power. Just vague statements, and reader bias.
Testing is the important part. Imo, the reason astrology persists is because of the lottery effect. One person out of 12 gets the perfect reading so promotes astrology as working when they were just lucky.
I tested it, I disagree. Or do you only respect tests that confirm your biases? Doesn’t sound very scientific to me.
Yes, you tested a conman to see if you would not fall for a con, and you fell for it. Congrats. It’s called the Barnum effect.
When actually put to the test astrology fails:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3200/genp.135.3.287-300
http://www.skepticalmedia.com/astrology/Scientific Inquiry into Astrology.pdf
https://genus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41118-020-00103-5
Certainty is unscientific and illogical. The scientific method cannot prove anything. It simply tests hypotheses to develop models. Every model is wrong, but some are more useful than others. Conflating the discovery of a useful model with absolute certainty isn’t science, it’s scientific fundamentalism, a cancer that eats your brain.
Nothing can be said scientifically about the truth or falsity of any claim. Science can only day that the evidence gathered in a particular experimental setup is consistent or inconsistent with a hypothesis.
Man, you do not understand science.
I’m a research chemist, and have been in the sciences for the last 15 years.
And science can test the hypothesis that astrology is accurate in various ways, and has shown time and time again that astrology is no better than random chance in its accuracy.
People have been trying to prove evolution is wrong since it was first posited, yet all evidence just further demonstrates it is the correct explanation for life.
Models aren’t wrong by definition. Incomplete perhaps, but if a theory is able to accurately predict the world around us then it is still a good theory. Our theory of gravity can let us calculate the exact position of stellar bodies for millennia ahead, and has been consistently shown to be accurate.
Gravity is just a theory. 👍