From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Doubters Of Astrology
Date: 7 Oct 92 06:23:04 GMT
Organization: TRW Financial Systems

crawdad@fncent (Matt Crawford) writes:
>>crawdad@fncent (Matt Crawford) writes:
>>>...  This, and many similar studies, shows
>>>that letting the recipient of a reading rate its accuracy cannot give
>>>any support to the hypothesis that astrology is valid.
>>>
>>>Suppose recipients of astrological readings were presented with a
>>>number of readings derived from different brithdates, ... Ask each
>>>to choose which reading most accurately describes him or her.  ...
>
>Eric C. S. Dynamic:
>>Unfortunately, Crawdad, you were scooped on this point, as - uh - I
>>hope you will recall in private mail. I proposed this very thing many
>>hours ago - shall I post my incoming/outgoing mail?

>Unless you left some details out which are important to me, then what
>you suggested in email is not equivalent.  

Look, if you have my mail, post it and compare. It sounded exactly like
what I described: I get N sets of data; produce N analyses; and ask the
people to come forward to claim themself. Quite honestly, I watch my cortex
running low "I care" marks on the issue of tests; you don't seem happy until
you can change the test. I'm doing what I'm doing for a demo, and maybe
someone will get a feel for what I do. I reread the Casper-first-shot and
I think it is too loose and disorganized, besides being incomplete - so
I will try much harder with the rest. I won't bother with Dave until I get
word I'm not writing into a vacuum (I guess I'll bite the bullet, go look
for his email address in my spool files, and post directly).

I already have 'titles' for the next three charts. These are nonspecific -

Born To Be a Star (or, Entertainment Tonight (this one's harder to name))
Trouble In Fairyland
Rebel Without a Horse

I wonder, based on this alone, if the people they refer to can guess it's them?
(Remember - choose the one that BEST fits . . .)

>>But I no longer care about this sort of test either.
>
>It seemed fair, simple, and little or no extra work for you, if you're
>going to do a handful of readings or more.  If you won't go along
>with it, the closing sentence of my previous post is oprative:

Yes, Matt - I'm doing readings now, and I have to budget my time.
After I've done the current stack of readings - through to the end - including
responses from the people themselves - and if they feel I did good work for
them, I'll consider the case closed. If I don't end up doing good work for
them, I will take the licking and go practice.

*I* proposed a method *I* felt would elucidate the practice of astrology as *I*
do it, and thought I could show that it works as used. So I'm doing that now,
slowly - we've got time here, right? If you want to prove it your way right
now - be my guest. :)

>>>If ECSD finds this test unacceptable, then I will believe (but not
>>>claim to have proven) that either he is hostile to scientific inquiry
>>>or has no faith in astrology.

I'm hostile to having my pet teddy bear called freddy the alligator, then
being teased for not knowing it's an alligator.

>>I don't recall was yours amongst the info I have received; for if
>>not, no time like now to be discouraged or encouraged around
>>astrology. I have strong things to say about the remaining parties .
>>. . including you, when I have your chart.
>
>I would have no objection to sending my date and place of birth (time
>too, if it's on my certificate), if it were to be part of a test I
>considered valid.  If you won't do the "post all readings with dates
>attached and let each subject state which fits him or her best" test,
>I can only offer you the "I provide one true date and nine false
>ones, then tell you which of the ten readings fits best" test, and
>that one *would* be a lot of wasted work for you.

Oh, send it or don't. First come, first served.

Tell you what. Sweetheart. Just for you, here's what I'll do.
You send me your time, date and place as I mentioned - accurate please.
Send me four other sets - you might as well make them all the same city,
so I only have to look up one set of coordinates. Make the dates and times
up yourself, don't get any help to do that and don't look in an ephemeris -
just random sets. I don't care if the date and time are identical and the
year changes, or if they are jumbled up.

I will look at them briefly, and decide if I can determine which is yours.
And we can mix an exchange about this process, in along with the readings.
What chance do I give myself to do this correctly? Nearly none. But what
the fuck, I'll give it a shot. If you want to stack it further and send 9
bogus sets - hey, whatever makes you happy. To narrow them down any, I will
have to ask questions of you and you will have to answer them. If you're
not willing to do this, then no test. If you balk in the middle at a question,
test cancelled. If you try to hold me up, asking why should I ask questions -
test cancelled - that's the way I do it. If you think you can practice
astrology the way you think it should work, then do that, write a book about
it, and I'll read it.

Sheesh. Some people.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa