Okay, I'm up for it.

[avevale_intelligencer]

But let's do this properly if we're going to do it at all. I'm a big fan of the scientific method. *adopts big old sh*t-eating grin copyright Simon Baker as Patrick Jane*

For this trick I will require the assistance of a volunteer from the studio audience. The volunteer should have a friend who is (a) an amateur astrologer (since I can't afford to pay for twelve professional jobbies), (b) completely unacquainted with me, and (c) willing to put in a fair amount of effort for no reward other than a possible sighting of the rare Greater Red-Faced Nyrond, or possibly a (partial, and scientifically invalid) vindication of astrology.

If such a person offers him- or herself, my assistant, the dashing and handsome catsittingstill, if she is willing, will select twelve birth dates and times, one of which is mine, the other eleven being randomly selected from a variety of months, years, days and times. The volunteer will then ask the friend to cast a birth chart for each date (classical astrology only; twelve signs, no waiting) and write down a description of the person charted, which the friend will then send to me without the date, chart or any other identifying marks. I will publish the twelve descriptions unedited and in full, and both I and my entire flist (or whoever's still reading) will pick the one that in our individual opinions best describes me.

After everyone who's going to has weighed in, the friend will reveal the correct description, and either I will look like a credulous buffoon (sorry, more like a credulous buffoon than I do already), or (if a significant number of guesses are correct; not sure what a significant number would be in this case) Cat will admit in this journal that on this occasion the experiment was successful, doubtless through pure random coincidence.

It's an awful lot of work to ask of somebody I don't know, but this way I can avoid any suggestion of personal bias. I'm told it's been done "time and again," so once more can't hurt.

Anyone interested, or shall we continue with the moving on process?

Comments

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

"Four fundamental forces that we already know about"????

Such as?

The whole point was that proper scientific studies have been done that have nothing at all to do with assumptions about planetary positions. Such as the studies of people born in the same place at approximately the same time that have shown no personality correlation!

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Uh, usually by the "four forces" people mean:

The nuclear strong force
The nuclear weak force
The electromagnetic force
The gravitational force.

I had thought the second and third were suspected to be the same, leaving three fundamental forces, but I am doubtless behind the times.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Yup, and those were the ones name-checked in the linked article, in a whole preamble that basically boils down to "none of the following list of ideas of how this could work actually *do* work... So therefore it can't work." Which is just crappy logic.

As a refutation of Astrology *as a whole*, the point lil_shepherd makes - basically, "there is no evidence of an effect that needs an explanation (and therefore there is no need to waste time working out whether Astrology, in any form, provides such an explanation)" is perfectly valid - assuming the data do in fact back it up, which I haven't checked - and would stand *stronger* if it was allowed to stand alone, rather than muddying the waters with rather less relevant waffle about the strength of gravity, etc., which are only relevant to demolishing various specific theories of *how* Astrology might work. (As soon as you knock one such theory down, it just invites people to create another. There's no end to the game of "yeah, but what if there's something we *don't know*...?", which is why (a) science shouldn't waste it's time on it, and equally (b) science shouldn't ever claim to finally settled matters in areas where in fact it has simply taken the prudent (Occamic) path of leaving them alone until such time as they start to look worthy of further investigation.)

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

None of which have any relevance to the subject at hand.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Exactly my point. =:o}

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

"The whole point was that proper scientific studies have been done that have nothing at all to do with assumptions about planetary positions. Such as the studies of people born in the same place at approximately the same time that have shown no personality correlation!"

That may have been *your* whole point, but it didn't come across to me as being the whole point of the article. (Basically, if that was the point you wanted to make - and I hope so, 'cos it's a damn good and highly pertinent one! =:o} - then citing that particular article wasn't the best way to do so.)

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

The point of that article are the citations.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Ah. You didn't make that clear.

[EDIT:] My bad. filkerdave didn't make that clear. (I confused your post with his.)

[EDIT AGAIN:] ...Or maybe you did? I was critiquing the "Bad Astronomy" piece. The Wikipedia article OTOH is excellent.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, Paul. I think I misunderstood your original post, and when I tend to refer to Wikipedia it is because the good articles contain decent summaries while citing the original work. My bad.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Same reasons I like Wikipedia. =:o}

No probs. [HIGH FIVE]