Internet Etiquette

Daily Horoscope: Pay Attention, There Will Be A Test.

Posted on July 19, 2010. Filed under: Astrology and Related Bunk, Internet Etiquette, Irony in the Title, Personal, Science, Trolls |

Author’s Note:This post is a continuation of my previous post Daily Horoscope which can be found here.

Over the past week I have been neglecting my readers (admittedly there are 5 of you or so) who have been waiting for my next post in the Apologetics and Apostasy series.  I apologize for being such an ungrateful host.

I have, for the past several days, been sidetracked by an ongoing debate with astrologers over at my friend Jason’s blog.  The previous post does a good job of explaining the basics for those readers who are new to this debate.

To this point, the astrologers have predictably stayed within the realm of the  “bob and weave”, effortlessly floating like a butterfly knowing that they have nothing to sting with.

Their core argument:

1. You don’t know me.  Why you hatin’?  You don’t know me.
2. You’re just hatin’ cuz you’re a sad, empty skeptic.
3. You don’t know jack about astrology, bro. You can’t hate on what you don’t understand.
4. I gots yo “evidence” right here, right behind this here zipper.

As I’m sure you’ve figured out, I’m not overly impressed with the quality of the debate thus far.

I’ll put this out there:

I am a skeptic, yes.  I do not believe the onus is on me to go brush up on astrology.  I admittedly know close to diddly friggin’ squat about boomerang yods, conjuncts, trines and quincunxes and what effect, if any, astrology assigns to these things.  I know this reads to the astrologer as “George can’t be bothered to learn about the subject” and to a degree, that is a valid criticism.

Every skeptic I have ever met believes in one core idea: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

• That stellar bodies several light years away from earth have a noticeable effect on the lives of humans is a pretty extraordinary claim, if only because it flies in the face of everything we can observe scientifically here on earth.
• That the time I was born has a measurable effect on my personality or future events in my life is an extraordinary claim, not least because it has only been discussed anecdotal with a hefty peppering of confirmation bias.
• That astrology is a repeatable phenomenon, that it can be used predicatively to gain insight into future occurrences, as opposed to anecdotally after the fact to “predict” that things happened just as they should; this too is extraordinary.

To Any Astrologer Reading This:

If you have evidence of any of these claims I am more than open to consider them.

Expect skepticism, expect questions, don’t just expect credulity.

I am open to new ideas.  I won’t discount real evidence on it’s face.  I will discount bald assertions and anecdotes.  I will rightly question beliefs that fly in the face of logic and common sense.  If you don’t have evidence, what you have is credulity, blind faith in something that you care not to question.

That’s not me.

That’s not how my brain works.

Explain it to me, please. Offer good evidence, useful falsifiable predictions, something more than “that’s just the way it is”.

If you expect me to invest hours upon hours of my time to prove/disprove a claim that is this fantastic, this counter-intuitive, this magical, then give me some hint that I’m not wasting my time chasing rainbows.  Offer me some hard evidence, then leave it to me to do the rest.

Here are a few ideas:

From James’ comment at Funk Astrology.

Hypothesis: That the time of a persons birth can be calculated with better than average accuracy using the dates of a series of unrelated events in their lives.

Experiment:  Provided with a list of ten (10) unknown subjects information including date of birth, place of birth, and several important events in their lives, the astrologer will be able to calculate their known birthtime within an insignificant margin of error.  These calculations are to be statistically more accurate than the guesses of 5 non-astrologers.

or

Hypothesis: That astrology can be used to predict some future events within a statistically insignificant margin of error.

Experiment:  That given time to pick fifteen(15) astrologically significant dates over the next two(2) years, the astrologer will be able to predict the location and nature of several seemingly random and unrelated events with a margin of error significantly less than that of the Null Hypothesis.

I’m offering you olive branches here guys, a chance to wow us with the veracity of your methods.

I know full well that there is no way to set up a completely scientific analysis of astrology in an internet forum.  I do believe, however, that in order for me to prove you “cheated” at any of these tests, I would at least be forced to make some pretty extraordinary assumptions.

That would count for me as “good evidence”, not irrefutable, but sufficient to require further study on my part.

You may also like to offer testable hypothesis of your own.  I am open to new evidence that I have been sorely mistaken about astrology for all these years.

You have the floor guys, make the most of it.

Daily Horoscope: Saturn Is In Aquarius And Yet You’re Still A Giant Dick

Posted on July 16, 2010. Filed under: Astrology and Related Bunk, Internet Etiquette, Irony in the Title, Personal, Science, Trolls |

Jamie Funk has hijacked my favorite blog.

Jamie Funk is an astrologer, and by that virtue alone he is also a quack.  I’m sure he is a fantastic father, a loving partner to his spouse, maybe even a nice bloke to sit down with over a pint of suds.

None of these facts take away from the fact that he charges folks money to tell them what the heavens are doing in their lives, and the basis for all his advice is absolute crap.  It might be good advice, it might even be sage advice, but it is advice that is derived from drawing semi-random and completely irrelevant chords in a circle and then generating utterly vague predictions about their future.

Even better, he likes to make a habit of taking known events and explaining how his method predicts that they would happen.  It’s silly really, because:

1. If he does have a teachable and consistent method, he can only choose those events that confirm his method and avoid those events that refute it.
2. He can choose only those planets and movements that confirm the event and set aside those that are inconsistent with the event.
3. If he has no consistent method, he can just make stuff up that sounds real astrologyish and show that his method explains any event.

My guess is that if someone asked him to pick a day in the near future, any day at all, that had lots of astrological significance happening, and make a real concrete, falsifiable prediction about what would happen that day he would dodge the offer or outright decline.

He should be able to make a prediction like:

On July 30, 2010 at 4:57PM PST an earthquake will strike the city of San Francisco, injuring thousands.

OR

The MaxMillions Draw for Friday, July 16th,2010  in Canada will be won by a Pisces, born on March 12th, 1979 at about 4:26 AM EST.

He won’t make any specific predictions, because he knows that they can be falsified, and as a result he would be proven false.  How about if he made 20 predictions over the next 9 months and he only had to get a hit on 25% of them?  I suspect he wouldn’t do that either.

Why?

Because Jamie knows that what he does is pure guesswork.  There is nothing more than entertainment value to the money he bilks from his poor shills.

I’m sure, if Jamie reads this, he will ignore it, or attack something other than my key points:

1. You cannot make testable, falsifiable predictions using your method
2. You can offer no peer-reviewed research backing up the claim that any method of astrology is accurate in making predictions
3. You use your method to explain things we already know happened and therefor there is no way to independently verify the method.

So Jamie, if you’re reading this, understand that I am not attacking your methods, I’m not even attacking astrology, and I’m certainly not attacking you.  I’m calling astrology out for what it is-a giant load of bunk that is no more valid than just making up advice for people off the cuff.  I’m asking you to stop dodging the issue, “shit or get off the pot”, so to speak.   If you don’t want to answer these concerns, which are the exact same ones made by Jason in his post-then stop hijacking my favorite blog- go back to entertaining your audience.  Don’t be surprised though, if we call you out again for misrepresenting reality.

Jamie Funk’s Horoscope for Saturday, July 17th 2010-  There is a foreign body entering Uranus.  If you relax a bit more today, you might enjoy the experience.