From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Fwd: Astrology: Scientific Research (Was Re: Doubters Of Astrology)
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:36:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.101430.13334@tfs.com>, ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
>>Jan Willem Nienhuys has already corrected the rumors spread by McPherson,
>>so this is irrelevant.  Astrology still has neither a theory nor evidence.
>
>Yeah? So post that here. (proof cited, not offered; case closed, I-have-spoken)

OK, I should have said:
>>Jan Willem Nienhuys has already corrected the rumors spread by McPherson
*in one of his last postings in this very thread*

>I say it has a theory, and that you don't know what that is. If you're so
>knowledgeable about the subject's failure, then expound upon it - what were
>the claims, what was the refutation?

I did mention neither claims nor refutation.  I mentioned "no theory", and now
please tell me how I am supposed to prove that a thing *doesn't exist*.
What is wrong here:

Me: There is no theory.
You: Show me.

But here is a small bit of evidence:  If there were an underlying theory
(meaning: an explanation), the alt.astrology FAQ would perhaps mention it, and
the place for it would be Question 23.  If there is an explanation, and your
FAQ does not even mention it at the appropriate place, that's not my fault.

*********Start of evidence****************
I quote from the a.a FAQ:
>23)  Don't you guys know that no cause for astrological effects
>     is known? Therefore such effects cannot exist.

The question is formulated in a silly way so that one can show in the
answer how silly skeptics are.  A better way to pose the question:

23)  You don't have an explanation for astrology.  That weakens its stance
	considerably.

The Answer (paraphrased for shortness, with occasional quotes)
starts with a "maybe not":
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is similar to the doctor-has-stronger-gravitational-pull
argument that assumes astrology works by gravity.  But astrology
"may well not involve gravity."

There are many sciences without theories.  Example, example.

In other cases where we have a theoretical explanation, we can't calculate
reality from this explanation.  Example.

Philosophers and psychologists haven't understood the notion of causality,
and perhaps it is not real.  Example, example, example.  BTW, the second
and third ones sound familiar to what skeptics say about astrology:

>As the empiricist Hume discovered, humans make an
>attribution of "causality" when they have certain types of
>perceptual experience (e.g., when A is perceived to precede B in
>time, B is always perceived to be preceded by A, and so on, then
>A is perceived to "cause" B).  The famous psychologist Albert
>Michotte did many studies in which he examined the factors that
>give rise to the impression of causality (see "La Perception de
>la Causalite," 1946, or the English translation, "The Perception
>of Causality," 1963). He showed, for example, that animated dots
>on a screen are perceived to be involved in a causal interaction,
>with one dot "causing" movement in another, when the timing
>relations of their movements and the relative direction of their
>movements fall within a certain range. (Of course no "causal
>relation" was ever actually present, since the movement was due
>to animation.)

That means, when you think there is a causal relation between human
fate and planets, it could be that your brain fools you.  That FAQ
really shoots itself in the foot.

Another example for something that doesn't have an explanation
(Newton's laws of motion), and some physicist's opinion about theories.
And as conclusion some fluffy New Age paragraph:

>So the descriptive theories of astrology, the relations that have
>been discovered and exploited over a period of thousands of
>years, may not lend themselves to an explanation in terms of
>causes any more than Newton's laws of motion do. The human mind
>seeks "causes" (at least in the West), but Nature herself may be
>indifferent to them. The Eastern vision of an harmonious universe
>with all its interconnected parts dancing in unison may be more
>in line with reality.
----------------------------------------------------------------
With this "may be" the Answer ends.  To paraphrase even more:
  Question:  You don't have an explanation for astrology.
  Answer: Yes, but I don't need any.
    (These grapes are too sour anyway.)

BTW, the whole skeptic part of that FAQ looks like that.

Again paraphrasing:
20) The idea of astrology sounds absurd.
   A: But it could be that it's correct anyway.  You never know.

23) You don't have an explanation for astrology.
   A: Some things aren't explained yet.  Besides it could be
      that you can't explain anything.

24)  Astrology fails on statistics.
   A: So do other things.  Perhaps the experimenters are biased,
      or the tests are not suitable.  Besides astrology is not
      falsifiable so is hasn't been falsified.

My favourite (I could laugh my head off on that one):
26)  Astrology if not falsifiable and therefore useless as a
     hypothesis.
   A: That doesn't falsify astrology.

27)  Scientists don't believe in astrology.
   A: They could be wrong.

Or, even shorter:

Skeptic: You can't expect me disprove astrology, because that's
  logically impossible, so the burden of proof is on your side.

  Astrology sounds absurd, there is no explanation for it,
  there is no experimental evidence, and nobody one can take
  seriously supports it.  So I have no reason to believe in it,
  therefore I don't.

Believer: It could be right anyway.
******************End of evidence******************

Your turn: please post the basics of the theory of astrology (Hello
talk.origins readers - sound familiar?).  And I don't mean "big heap of
unrelated hypotheses", I mean "theory".

[a bit cryptic paragraph omitted]

>>1) I am right.
>>2) This skeptic says I'm wrong.
>>3) Then he must be wrong.
>>4) What could have induced him to say wrong things?
[..]
>>5) So I don't have to listen to him.

>1) I have proven my beliefs to my self.
 1a) So I'm definitely right. (Wow, *proof*.  Not only evidence, *proof*!)
>2) This skeptic says I'm wrong.
>3) Then he hasn't my internal experience.
 3') It could be that he has experiences I don't have, but that's TOTALLY
     IRRELEVANT to me.  So irrelevant I don't even think of the possibility.
>4) What could have induced him to dispute my experience?
[..]
>  c) He has a reaction pattern in which he ridicules what he doesn't believe.
>  d) He only wants to have an argument.
>  e) He is afraid of the intellectual consequences for his present worldview.
>  f) He is afraid of what his family, friends and neighbors will think.
>  g) He is caught in White-Western eschewal of things labeled 'occult'. (e,f)
>  h) He thinks science accounts for human experience. Or has even a CLUE.
   Lemma for h): Science doesn't apply here. (What?  Science and astrology
	don't mix?  Then we have to throw science out!)
>  i) He really doesn't give a damn, he holds his opinion
>	 "because he feels like it."
>  j) He refuses existing dissonant information.
>5) So I tolerate his ignorant abuse while I get on with my own life.

That's a lie.  You heap loads of rhetorical cow dung on Dave Casper every
time he posts a critical article in a.a.  You definitely do not tolerate him.

>  a) And I remain patient while he remains disinvested. $$ NOT ANY MORE $$
>  b) And I tolerate watching him use the same hand-waving techniques
>	 he claims I do. $$ NOT ANY MORE $$
>  c) And I remain patient while watching him propose tests he mistakenly
>	 assumes will validate the subject - a subject he knows nothing about.
>  d) And I remain patient while he denies he has any emotional stake in the
>	 outcome. $$ NOT ANY MORE $$

Patient?  More lies.

>I agree, original-4b is pretty handy. Especially when the information is freely
>available to those with the interest to pursue it.
>Those who don't, still enjoy the freedom to harrass, but not without being
>called down for it, which I have done earlier.

In general, you confirmed my anti-skeptic model in a perfect way.  When you
meet people who don't agree with you, you indeed don't even think of letting
the idea that there could be a possibility that they may be right enter your mind,
much less cross it.
Instead you concentrate on thinking of possible reasons for the *FACT* that
the skeptic is wrong.  Thank you for the exhibit.  Point confirmed.

>Have a nice day.
I had.  Shredding your bad logic helped a lot.
Have a nice day yourself.

--
thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
...and then the dragon ate the princess and the knight, and he lived happily
ever after.   -- Grandma Addams telling Wednesday a story (paraphrased)