From: praetzel@marconi.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Praetzel)
Subject: Re: Troubled Times!
Keywords: Denebola Mundane astrology
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:54:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.101607.164430@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>praetzel@marconi.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Praetzel) writes:
>>It just goes to show that we are not rational
>>and very unscientific in our reasoning and attributation of causes.  As for
>>the application to astrology.  You all know my beliefs.
>
>Then why do you consistently feel the need to repeat them?
  If you knew someone who was convinced that all <insert ethnic group> are
responsible for a large portion of violent crime would you not try to 
correct them?
  From the basic first and 2nd year courses you could easily explain 99% of
all observations of astrologers, tarot readers ....  If you read the books
of some people who are in the industry then you will find out about the
_cold_reading_ phenomena which makes use of the brains unconsious ability
(verified many times in clinical tests and studies) to attribute or interperate
noise to a cause.  Ie if you throw some nonesence at someone, they will pick
out parts relevent to them; ignore the rest and then attribute the ability to
<read minds ...> to you.  Kreskin was one of the most popular people who did
this and if you catch his reruns on TV they are very informative to watch).
  This alone will explain virtually every observation that someone makes.
Because a biased interperater is used any data is worthless.  Several studies
have shown that given a psychological list of traits from their chart people
will agree 90+ % with it totally.  If you take several of the traits and
select the opposite characteristic people will still agree 90+% with it.
The upshot is that you can not use any data gathered where the person
interperates their own data.
  As far as I can see you are missing the obivous explinations and attributing
it to astrology.  Astrology supposidly is so obivous to individuals and yet
the proof leaves you wanting.  How was it developed?  Why were some
astrologic objects added and others not?  How were people able to attribte
chart characterists to objects that they did not know the position of and
did not even know of some of the planets?  There is no basis for the present
system and not the slightest bit of evidence that it has evolved and become
in the least bit more accurate or accurate at all.
  I try to point this out because it seems that that is all that they try to
drum into the head of artsies.  Not only in first year but in second year each
course points out that correlation is not causation and that if we assume
correlation thru our senses (ie years of "experience") we are most likely
completely wrong.  Please understand that.  Science is an excellent tool to
help you understand the world around you.  Many people use it in a very
limited sense and the result is the National Inquirer, UFOs, tarot cards,
astrology, magic, religon.
  In the end there may be some correlations between charts and characteristics
but that does not imply causation and I would suggest that if you wanted to
understand yourself better you go thru a barrage of psych tests and get out
and try some different things.  Shock yourself with the unknown to see how
you respond.  From that (well you really need the observations of others
around you since people are an extreamly poor judge of themselves) you can
learn a lot more about who you are.  Analize your thoughts and you can
deduce why you did things and what guided you to that choice.  No stars, no
witches, no potions.  Rational thought.  Of course that rational thought is
always subject to the same irrationalities that I have talked about so have
a few friends around to bounce ideas off of.  Its the only way to approach
the truth or create your own little universe of "truths".
  - Eric