- ... Edgar, you lie so glibly. You don t seem to care what you say. Michel Gauquelin first lectured at the First International Symposiun for AstrologicalMessage 1 of 89 , Dec 3, 2012View SourceAt 07:22 PM 11/30/2012, Edgar Owen wrote:
The astrologer Gauquelin conducted a number of very detailed statistical studies in an attempt to "prove" various aspects of astrology. In the end even he concluded there was no correlation between anything in astrology and human behavior except what he called "the Mars effect".
However when professional statisticians reviewed his data it was found he had made statistical errors. Towards the end of his life he seems to have finally admitted he was wrong about that too and there was NO Mars effect.
So ironically it was the meticulous work of a professional astrologer who, in an attempt to prove astrology, ended up disproving it!
PS: Gauquelin is one of the celebrities Julienne claims is/was her "friend" apparently because she attended an astrology conference he was present at once.
Edgar, you lie so glibly. You don't seem to care what you say.
Michel Gauquelin first lectured at the First International Symposiun for Astrological Research, which I organized
as the Founding President of that organization. It was the first time Gauquelin had spoken at an astrological conference in
the US. Attached is a photo of Gauquelin in our home in Montclair, New Jersey.
As you do so frequently with anyone with whom you disagree, you speak of Gauquelin with disrespect and scorn.
Your lies/mistakes - above:
1) Gauquelin was not an astrologer, he was a statistical psychologist who undertook tests of astrology.
2) You say: "In the end even he concluded there was no correlation between anything in astrology and human behavior except what he called "the Mars effect".
Mot true. I assume you mention the Mars effect because that's all you know about.
3) You say: "However when professional statisticians reviewed his data it was found he had made statistical errors."
Not true. There was a dishonest claim by a Skeptics group, and that deception was found by others, and admitted to
by the perps.
4) You say: "PS: Gauquelin is one of the celebrities Julienne claims is/was her "friend" apparently because she attended an astrology conference he was present at once."
See #1 above. Gauquelin was also on my Board of Directors, at my invitation. His wife, Francoise Gauquelin, who
worked with him, was also my friend.
But you already know all this, Edgar - because all this information has previously been written here - photos may also have been posted here, too.
You remind me of Rush Limbaugh in your bloviating disregard for reality or truth.
Perpetual devotion to what a man calls his business, is only to be sustained by perpetual neglect of many other things. Robert Louis Stevenson
- Julienne, Can you help me understand how astrologers do experiments? What would an astrological experiement look like? How would another scientist repeat theMessage 89 of 89 , Dec 10, 2012View SourceJulienne,
Can you help me understand how astrologers do experiments? What would an astrological experiement look like? How would another scientist repeat the experiment? Assuming science doesn't prove anything, it only falsifes hypotheses, what has been falsifies by astrologers?
As a x-genetist, I can understand how a scientists do organic chemistry, microbiological or genetic experiments. There was a time when I could cross to corn inbreds that another scientist had crossed and repeat his experiment or tweak his hypothesis (outcome) by following a specific methodology. May be you could discribe an astrolgoical experiemental methodology for me.
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 20:53:16 -0500
Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Asteroids and the Scientific MethodAt 10:17 PM 12/7/2012, Fred Feinberg wrote:
I can't speak for anything like the majority of statisticians or users of statistical methodology. However, if I were to write one of those Freakonomics type books where I had to say what Science or Statistics really meant, it would boil down pretty much to this:
Science helps us overcome known biases in human perception in helping determine what's true.
The reason I emphasize this is that there are systems, like Astrology, divining, bloodletting, and thousands of others (not to mention whole religions!) that were believed in not only by some very bright people, but by very bright people who based their belief on what they took to be EVIDENCE. "Evidence" isn't enough. How it's collected is.
It's like Richard Feynman said, in one of the most insightful and important remarks I've ever heard: that, if you are a real scientist, you put equal energy into supporting and refuting your theory, looking for evidence on both sides. Very few people do that. Most have a horse in the race.
Edgar and Julienne have whole fleets of horses in the race. Each of them is completely committed to a final position, and endpoint in their debate. Neither is even trying to pretend to be equally arduous in collecting evidence in favor or against Astrology. Personally, I don't care about Astrology, and what I've seen of its predictive successes is, putting it mildly, inconclusive. Julienne does make a good point: if we decide in advance what is possible, we will not take a close look at things that may surprise us.
I have come to the point now, Fred, where I think you are just in a coma. It doesn't matter what I
say, you can't take it in.
I founded The International Society for Astrological Research for exactly the purpose of conducting
sound and comprehensive research into astrology, because, in my twenties, I was frustrated with the
level of astrology I saw being done, and the misinterpretations of it in the media - such as equating
it with sun sign rubbish.
I organized conferences all over the world, and travelled all over the world - over 80 countries,
gathering together physicists, medical doctors, historians, mathematicians, psychiatrists,
therapists of many kinds, biologists, geneticists, astronomers, and more, to bring their expertise'
and their information and work to explore what was or was not to be found in astrology.
You sit there smugly telling me what I believe in order to comfort yourself. I have always said,
when asked, on, for instance, interviews on TV or radio, or for various publications, why I
"believed" in astrology, that I don't believe in it - any more than I believe in biology. I've
lived long enough, Fred, to see information taught us in school as gospel, be unmasked - not
necessarily as fraud, but as incomplete, sometimes flatly wrong, sometimes needing fine tuning,
sometimes exploding the current levels of information. Even this week - we knew (were told)
there was no water on Mars - and now, guess what? - there seems to be water at the Martian poles.
But you insist on lying and claiming that it is a religion to me, and that I do "believe"
in it - and you appeal to the rest of the group here to join you in your belief. Seems to me,
Fred, that the believer is you - trying to convince yourself in your pretend role of reasonable
mediator, that you are being open and objective. But you're not.
I sent, as requested, "sTARBABY", and the "CSICOP" article, and you simply brushed them aside
as containing information which was confusing to you.
Edgar knows nothing about astrology, and you know that - but you got a kick out of
using him as a "balance" against me. Ignorance isn't a balance against a quest for
knowledge and understanding, Fred - it's just ignorance.
I think it was Erasmus Darwin who said we should do crazy experiments from time to time, like to play a trumpet every day for a month to daffodils, and see what happens. Most of the time, nothing. But, sometimes, we may question the very way we see the universe.
I don't know if this sort of answer is what you were after. Obviously, it's a subject that intrigues me.
Re: Asteroids and the Scientific Method
Fri Dec 7, 2012 6:46 pm (PST) . Posted by: "Andy Anderson" nd_ndrsn
In your sense of having “…a specific
way of dealing with data and empirical questions,” would you say that is
similar to a position of experiential, experimental observation, from a clearing
free of “artificial scaffolding?”
I for one would like to hear more of your
position. It seems to me there are few
places on the internet and few news groups that are not full of true believers proselytizing
their beliefs, projecting thier fear. ]You articulate an
important position. Thank you,
Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.
-- Albert Einstein