• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    11 year ago

    Yet every time astrology is tested it has failed.

    Evolution is basically a scientific certainty at this point because every single test has shown it to be true, and no one has every been able to disprove it. We don;t understand every single nuance and mechanism of evolution, but the fact evolution is occurring and has occurred in the past is a certainty.

    Gravity is a certainty at this point. Again we don’t fully understand the exact causes of gravity, but the fact it exists is certain.

    And every test to try and show any validity to astrology has failed, astrology is nothing but a scam.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Again, I tested it, I found some evidence of success. You can say that that test isn’t statistically significant, you can question my methodologies, but you cannot say that every test has failed.

      This conversation isn’t about astrology, I don’t believe in astrology. This conversation is about mental hygiene, and the creeping fundamentalism that stifles scientific progress. Certainty is unscientific.

      • @FarmTaco
        link
        21 year ago

        “Gravity im not so sure about, astrology on the other hand…”

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -21 year ago

          Astrology on the same hand I’m not so sure about. I’m not so sure about anything, because being so sure is brain rot at best and narcissism at worst.

          “Scientific consensus is absolute truth” is the antithesis of science. Truth is fundamentally unknowable. Science is absolutely by far the best method we have for approximating truth, but it can only ever be an approximation. An extremely consistent, useful, and accurate approximation of course, good enough to make important decisions with. But it is epistemologically ridiculous to declare absolute truth.

          Once you start letting that kind of absolutism in, you’re lost. That’s why scientific papers don’t say “we proved that X causes Y”, they say “we observed a strong correlation between the presence of X and the result Y”.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            An extremely consistent, useful, and accurate approximation of course, good enough to make important decisions with.

            Honestly, that is truth. The word truth has been bastardized by common use, but in science a theory is truth.

            And there are also established facts in science, you keep forgetting about those.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              -1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              That’s the brain rot I’m talking about. You are conflating overwhelming consensus with absolutes. If everyone believed as you, we’d still believe in alchemy and humors. Absolute certainty is the greatest conceit. These “truths” and “facts” you speak of are only such in the colloquial sense. It is imperative that a serious scientist remembers that. Brush up your epistemology.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        That is not a scientific test. I’ve already told you, you fell prey to the Barnum effect.

        And no, the only unscientific thing in this conversation is you insisting a data point of 1 with no controls is you somehow testing it.