From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: same old same old
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 11:41:00 GMT

In article <Bvtuos.8E6@csn.org>, lmpm@teal.csn.org (L. M. P. McPherson) writes...
>In article <1992Oct8.121842.1246@tfs.com> ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>>
>>Even easier - if you know why astrology *does not work*, then publish your
>>results - yes? Do you have any?
>>
>>Any response to the LONG posting about RESEARCHED correlations between
>>astronomical phenomena and human types, by L. McPherson? Did you read it?
>>Over in rec.org.mensa, it's still there - for the *mere reading* of it.
>>
> 
> 
>I'm afraid you're wasting your time if you think that scientific
>evidence can dissuade an anti-astrologer from his views. So-
>called "skeptics" simply ignore data that does not fit their
>world view. I have seen this time and again. Take, for example,
>my recently posted summary of some research findings in astrology
>(posted to rec.org.mensa, and then forwarded by someone to
>sci.skeptic).

You may find this hard to believe, but I don't read sci.skeptic.  Could you
either post here or e-mail me (you need not include Gauquelin as I am
familiar with his work and we have discussed it on numerous occasions).  I
was interested to hear recently how many players of a Basque game a bit like
Lacrosse (played nowhere outside the Basque region of Spain) and Italian
sports pilots were considered "extremely eminent international athletes" in
this study though.  Whereas according to Gauquelin, American football and
basketball players were not sufficiently well known outside their own niche
to meet his eminence criteria (he determined after the study failed).

I deferred comment on most of the metallurgical material you posted some weeks
ago.  It seemed to me that, despite all the graphs, this was referring to an
extremely subjective phenomenon which might well appear or disappear according
to the state of mind of the experimenter.  In addition, crystal formation is
affected by a large number of conditions like temperature and air pressure,
motion in the container, etc., which were not controlled during the experiment.
Despite these shortcomings, I would like to see these experiments repeated,
since they are more amenable to confirmation or rejection than most claims put
forward by astrology.

I often find the level of a person's credence in a statement proportional to
the amount of money they are will to stake on it.  If these metallurgical
experiments were repeated under controlled conditions so that the influence of
the planets was the only variable, how much money would you be willing to bet
that the effect would be seen? 

And of course, in the unlikely event there were some influence of the planets
on crystal formation, that is still a long way from showing that it affects
human behavior in the way postulated by Western astrology.

>Someone should explain the statistical
>concepts of power and variance to him...). He also tried to
>devalue the effect by pointing out that it occurs only among the
>most eminent athletes (which makes perfect sense according to
>astrological theory), and that it is not an overwhelming effect
>in terms of size, despite its statistical significance. (There
>goes all of social science...)

You know very well that the larger your sample size, the smaller the systematic
error which can mimick an effect.  Statistical significance itself is no
guarantee that systematic effects or biases are not present.

>But the demands for scientific proof are just rhetoric. No amount of
>evidence would sway them. 

How much evidence contrary to the claims of astrology would sway you?  That
argument cuts both ways.  There are plenty of studies, many done by your friend
Gauquelin or astrologers like Geoffrey Dean which show quite convincingly that
most if not all of astrological theory just doesn't bear out with the facts.

>(Ever notice how few *women* are die-hard "skeptics"? It is a man's need
>to identify with a father image.)

Probably this is because there are fewer women in the hard sciences in general.

>Data and logical argument do not affect beliefs. We are animals.
>We are visceral. We only change our world view if we find
>ourselves in such crisis that we have to accept the fact that our
>current world view is maladaptive. Only severe emotional and/or
>physical stress causes people to reevaluate their belief systems.
>Study brain-washing techniques some time. You don't brainwash
>someone by calmly explaining a coherent position to them, backed
>up by logical argument, statistics and data. You have to submit
>them to emotional and physical torture, being careful to link the
>pain to their old belief system by association, and then you have
>to reward them for adopting the target belief system.

Now you begin to understand the true purpose of my presence here...(just
kidding!)

>Change comes through the emotions, through the drive to survive, not
>through the intellect. This fact has been brought home to me by
>my years of experience in science. It is painfully common to see
>academics cling to a theory for years or even decades long after
>substantial evidence against the theory has been accumulated.

I don't suppose astrology could possibly qualify as one of those theories
people cling to for years or even decades (or millenia) long after
substantial evidence against the theory has been accumulated, could it?  Nah...

>It's human nature. Some of them would only give up the theory if
>clinging to it caused the end of their career and the consequent
>turmoil -- but tenure prevents such an occurrence. If they
>invented the theory and it once achieved some popularity, they
>are rewarded with endless attention for maintaining it. If they
>are simply a follower, they are rewarded for continuing to follow
>the theory with the positive approval of other loyal followers. 

This is simply, utterly, and demonstrably false.  In the case of physics,
theories are discarded almost overnight when compelling evidence arrives.
These occasions are waited for expectantly, and when a new experiment confirms
the theory in some area that hasn't been tested, there is vast disappointment!
Now, when an experiment appears to conflict with a theory which has already
been tested and found valid in a particular domain, then the system is more
complicated - someone's experiment may have erred, and the work must be
repeated until the discrepancy is understood.  But what you say is basically
not true in my experience.

>I would never have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own
>eyes! There is this wonderful myth out there that scientists are
>cool, disinterested, and perfectly rational -- that data are
>their only teachers. Nice myth. As the Gauquelins showed,
>scientists are typically Saturnian, not Uranian (that is, they
>are more likely to have Saturn angular; no such effect was found
>for Uranus). They are *conformist* and *conventional*, cautious
>and conservative. They seek to maintain the status quo, not to
>overturn it with new findings. 

You have neatly begged the question here.  First, Gauquelin found that about
3-5% more than expected by chance of the *most eminent* (supposedly)
scientists had an angular Mars - what about the 80% or so who do not have
that feature, what about people like me who are not eminent?  Second, he then
went on to demostrate that since scientists are depicted in various articles,
etc as rational, conformist, etc THAT implies that Saturn denotes this feature.
You cannot now turn around and argue that since a few more scientists than
expected have angular Saturn, that all scientists have these attributes.  It is
circular reasoning. 

Another fine example of astrology lending itself to stereotyping and
depersonalization.


Dave


Disclaimer:  The above represent my opinions stated openly in a public forum.
They may disagree with your opinions.  No disparagement of persons holding
different views is implied.  If the above discussion disturbs you to the point
of anger, please disregard it.