Fri, 28 January 2011
0:00:00 Comments[37]
|
- I just got around to listening to this one (slack, I know!). Maynard did a great job of getting the information out of Jessica about her beliefs and theories of the 'science' of astrology. He's a great guy and very skilled at putting people at ease and getting them to talk, but I think he failed to properly challenge what she said or to get her to elaborate upon vague answers that implied great results from her predictions.
(Sorry Maynard) After having met you and having a great conversation at TamOz I am a great fan, but I think you really should have, in your respectful, polite and amusing style, asked her to elaborate upon what she understood by 'quantum effects' and 'strange quarks' and their relationship to astrology. It would have also been nice to have gotten her to list the numerous news headlines that she predicted 'months in advance' to allow the Zone crew to do a bit of fact checking and call her if she was indeed bluffing.
It would also have been interesting to hear her response about the contradiction between her statements that 'astrology has nothing to do with what people see through telescopes' and her later statement that people have come to epiphanies about the accuracy of astrology after reading an ephemeris that lists the position of astronomical bodies.
I think she also needed to be called to elaborate how her urge for have people 'check on their super' was anything more than a general good idea for people rather than, as she seems to indicate, a clear and unmistakeable prediction of the global financial crisis.
I realise that this would have made the interview very confrontational and that isn't Maynard's style and also in accordance with Maynard's own unfair self assessment as being only a 'peripheral skeptic', but I feel any time you give people a platform to promote controversial beliefs you have an obligation to call them on their statements.
Calling them on their fallacies after the interview concludes comes off as unfair and fits right in their image of skeptics as 'not giving them a say' as they would undoubtedly refuse to do a follow up to explain the points raised by either ignoring the opportunity or denying that it would be offered fairly. - I think the interview was a brave move. I assume there was limited editing for the purposes of flow but no content was removed. As such it could have gone badly and I commend Maynard for doing a good job.
That said I squirmed and hollered at my player all through it. I interrupted myself so much I had to listen again to get the bits I missed. No matter how well the woo-meister is interviewed the content will always make me cringe and scream.
The reversal of the onus of proof stating it is for the skeptics and science to disprove astrology mad me so angry I had to stop listening before I crashed the car.
In this I hated the message from the astrologer but now have a greater understanding of what the guys at the skepticzone as messengers deal with.
- I thought it was excellent having a reasonably eloquent astrologer on the show. I think astrology is nonsense, but I still want to hear from them.
Joe Nickell was on Point of Inquiry a few days ago strongly making the point that many of we skeptics are a bit too cocky and perhaps don't do enough to experience the 'other side'. He said he can even feel a bit ashamed of many skeptics, who proudlty show disregard and disrespect. I really think he had a point, although admittedly it's really hard to want to waste more than a few minutes on people like homepathists etc. - It occurs to me finally how a "skeptic versus psychic" debate is NOT "fair and balanced". One person is here to share ideas for free, the other is here to sell ideas for money.
Perhaps "fair and balanced" could be satisfied if you set rules for "no selling good or services" and "no adversing your website". (If someone wants to find either of you they can Google.)
The trouble with letting people advertise their website is that they get to say and sell anything to viewers or readers with no one to cry "nonsense".
- I thought Maynard did a great job of interviewing Jessica, challenged her in a fun way and let her speak.
However she does charge for her service and therefore I think it is fair game to expect that she can do what she says she can (interestingly she said that others should disprove her which doesn't sound like she is confident in her 'powers').
I would say that the ACCC should put a stop to the Astrology/Physics like they did for Power Band, it plainly false advertising to claim you can see into the future. - Never trust anyone who can see further into the future than you can.
Plenty of legends tell of oracles who predicted their customer will suffer a bad fate. The customer sets out to prevent this fate and in doing so, causes the fate to happen. So the Oracle must have decided to set the customer on this course. The Oracle could have just said nothing and avoided the whole thing.
Anyone who can see your future better than you can play with your future horribly by saying whatever it takes to get you to do what they want.
- Argument tactic for "how could I make that prediction?"
Making predictions is not impressive. People make predictions all the time. And anyone can read up on something on the internet and make a prediction about it. Any child can do it.
Impressive predictions would be those that out-predict an expert in a subject-matter. Very impressive predictions would be made when psychic and expert are making predictions on the same list of questions at the same time.
Here are a few examples:
- Astrologer versus Political expert, predicting political events.
- Astrologer versus Meteorologist, predicting weather.
- Astrologer versus Investment Banker, predicting financial trends.
- Astrologer versus Mathematician, predicting random numbers.
- A common-sense test of any prediction: "Is it useful?"
Predictions are useful if:
- they allow us to gain benefit.
- they allow us to avoid loss.
Predictions can easily be categorized "NOT USEFUL" if:
- what is needed to avoid loss will not be known until after the loss.
- what is needed to gain the benefit will not be known until after the benefit cannot be gained.
- they can only be matched to a person in hindsight.
- they can only be matched to a point in time after it passes.
For example, it is not useful to predict that someone, somewhere, in the next few years will lose money on an investment. That prediction will not give anyone the ability to avoid a loss. The loss could as easily be caused by the prediction when someone sells an investment that goes up the next day.
Fair to say: a predictor is only as useful as their predictions.
- Just finished listening to Maynard's interview with the miffed Jessica Adams. I had to wipe my drink off the inside of my windscreen! I was expecting a half reasonable discussion about astrology. Boy was I disappointed. Is that the best they can come up with!
Looking a Jessica's logic (sharpened no doubt by here qualifications in Philosophy and Religion) it seems that :-
1) After failing to come up with a good argument about why the astrologer solar system doesn't
appear to coincide with one you can actually see if you bother to look up we now say it doesn't
because the Astrology one is sort of "virtual" & not meant to represent the real one. In that case
why use the planet names etc at all. Maybe saying you were born to the planet Thark rising in the constellation of the Grant Wazoo doesn't sound so impressive. I was amazed that she missed the
fact that the influences of the planets etc on people at the time of their birth could be explained by "quantum" which now seems to justify anything.BTW I wonder if Ptolemy(who seemed a half decent astronomer)knew he was talking about a virtual solar system and not the real one. A lot of other astrologers seem not to know this either
Oh, 5 points for whipping out "quantum" as the explanation for just about anything in the fastest
time.
2) Its up to critics to prove it's not true, not up to the, er, postulater to prove it is. Do you need a degree in philosophy to come up with that one? Also you don't get to choose if your premise is provable or not. The claim that a person can predict the future is amenable to proof. The experiment is simple. Astrology (and pretty much all other forms of divination) failed. What more is there to know,
3) When you subject the results to the "sausage machine of statistics". Oh dear, a disparaging name to try to undermine the validity of a method. Is "if you guess right once then you can predict the future" a better proof? If so its apparent anyone can predict the future and we all have done. I would assume with equal success to astrology, tea leaf reading and rummaging in animal entrails just by blind stupid guessing. But no doubt with less cool factor and ability to separate fool and money.
4) NME editor now an astrologer. Poor appeal to authority. Spirit guides - even worse appeal to
authority but has the catchy bit that you can't say "your spirit guide is a dickhead" without admitting you believe in spirit guides. Anyway you wouldn't want to upset some old Chinese guy who is obviously imbued with the Wisdom of the ancients. Bet he doesn't speak very good Chinese though -oh maybe some obscure ancient dialect that no-one else seems to speak now.
5) No point asking what the 5 actual predictions were. And the usual vague "one of them will make
it big" prediction. yeah which one, or would that make the global financial markets collapse as well! (that was the point I gagged on my drink- never hear that one before). Plenty of opportunity to say something about about Cyclone Yasi. No?
And so on...
As for as the "suspend disbelief" stuff goes I don't know how many times I have heard that when
the sensible discussion peters out. But that cuts both ways. Jessica should suspend disbelief in the
fact that astrology is rubbish for four weeks. Really look at it from a skeptical standpoint, then see how she feels about it. Oh I forgot, she doesn't have to. Between spirit guides, her psychic abilities and the virtual position of the virtual stars she already knows the outcome.
In short I don't think she had a single valid point to make. I though she could do better. - Just wanted to agree with the many here - really enjoyed the interview with the astrologer.
Well, when I say enjoyed... it was painful to hear such nonsense, really, really painful. Screaming out at every logical fallacy and darn stupidity.
I will add that if this was not being recorded for (exclusively) for a sceptical podcast, but for the general public (i.e. public radio) I would have been 'frustrated' that she was not challenged on the nonsense she came out with.
However, since it was for a sceptical podcast - this made it more interesting. A little homework for the listener – it is for us to smell out the bull.
One suggestion if I may...
Maybe a prize should be given to the person who comments on the forum with the most logical fallacies, untruths, and misunderstandings found in the interview so we can compare notes afterwards.
The prize could be as simple as a shout-out of their name on the next podcast.
Don't think I can add much more then has been commented already made.
Thanks guys
Keep up the good work.
Lee
- Anyone who could publicly demonstrate actual psychic abilities would be instantly recruited (or kidnapped) by people wanting to get rich.
Anyone who could predict that would not publicly show such an ability. (The could easily opt for any of the world's investment markets where getting rich on a few lucky predictions is not unusual.)
- I'll assume for a moment that there ARE a few people who can "predict" the future (near future or not-so-near.) Those people are doubtless snapped up by governments, rich patrons, or groups of some kind. The advantages would of course be a well-kept and well-paid secret.
Even a weak ability to predict would be well-paid somewhere, not just the lottery. For example:
-on Wall Street. Investment managers pay for insightful predictions all the time?
-Insurance companies pay for predictions even more so.
-the fishing industry would pay for improved odds on where to cast nets or crab traps.
-Even the right picks in an astrologer's own retirement plan would mean no need for other income.
-Casinos would pay very well to have ANTI-psychic personnel on the staff to prevent losing money.
So, anyone who sells merchandise and services to members of the general public one-at-a-time must be someone who has no such ability.
- I vote to keep the "classic" theme. I wouldn't mind the remix cropping up occasionally - it has a kind of early-90s/synth/sci-fi feel to it, maybe it can be used thematically? - but for general use I think the original works better to set the tone of the show.
I enjoyed the interview with Ms. Adams. It's good to occasionally hear what the "other side" are claiming, straight from the horse's ar^H^Hmouth.
Others have pointed out some of the numerous logical fallacies she commits, including the inevitable appeals to popularity and tradition, argument from ignorance and demands for negative proof. The one that stood out to me was the somewhat bizarre special pleading that it doesn't work if you look at it statistically, only if you look at individual cases, as though statistics isn't just a lot of individual cases looked at together! She's basically admitting that she's just cherry-picking her hits, and even states, as if it somehow supports her argument, that "Coincidence ... is the principle on which astrology is founded"!
I love Simon G's "argumentum ad quantum"! Has there really not been a term for this before? Actually I think there are two different forms of it. Adams uses the non-sequitur of comparing astrology to quantum physics, suggesting both are equally counterintuitive or weird, and therefore equally valid. Someone like Deepak Chopra claims their field IS quantum physics, and mounts a proof by verbosity by picking technical terms from real quantum physics from a hat until you need an advanced degree just to follow the argument, let alone refute it. I humbly submit "strangeness" and "entanglement" as terms for these subtypes of argumentum ad quantum.
Finally, I'll just leave this here:
12:38: Maynard: So, what do you want the BBC to do?
12:40: Adams: I think they should just give open slather to the other side...
...
13:34: Adams: I think it's the extreme point of arrogance to presume that you should be able to control a television station...
- Since you invited comments to this episode, here you go. Jessica Adams sounded sincere and I appreciate Maynard's ability to interview a variety of people with various ideas and ideals without conveying judgment. Being fairly new to skepticism as a movement, I enjoyed hearing her arguments in her words as an exercise in spotting logical faults irrespective of her confident tone. I think this interview was an excellent example of "special pleading". For example, her point that astrology wavers on the lottery whilst working for personal information. (And to the point made in the comments above, I didn't notice her double standard of the lottery versus other financial predictions she made. Good point.) She dismisses scientific scrutiny since the numbers don't prove the reliability of astrology and instead goes the "woo" route of using anecdotes to prove efficacy. Unfortunately, I think that this is a common trap (as well as her appeals to popularity), even for sincere and otherwise intelligent people with no formal training in the scientific method. Great interview and I look forward to more in the future.
- Ms Adams asked if people are familiar quantum physics. I wonder if she is as she is applying a micro effect to a macro world. Suggesting that quantum physics has odd effects therefore astrology is not understandable. Electrons can go thru 2 slits simultaneously, is she suggesting people can too if they just believe. The quantum world still has observable measurable effects which she suggest astrology does not and shifts to fit the evidence. How it cannot be tested, but must be taken on faith. As a brit myself I believe the BBC were certainly justifiable in a science program making that comment. If she wants a opinion expressed without the burden of evidence on the BBC then surely "songs of praise" fits that bill. Scientist don't feel aggrieved and feel compelled to complain that no proof of god has be presented or no science content is in a religious program. This was always promoted as a show about astronomy and should have been viewed as such. A scientist expressed an opinion about the stars have no observable, measurable effect on the human condition, which to date I don't believe any compelling evidence has been presented contradicting that view. If Ms Adams can present such evidence then she a right to complain, until such time I don't see the problem. Simply stating "lots of people believe" is anecdotal and not as valid as evidence from a properly carried out double blind trial. Come up with the evidence, then raise your grievance.
- Let me start by saying that I enjoyed both the episode and the new theme tune, but the topic of conversation is of course Maynard's interview with Jessica Adams.
I think the salient point was when she said that astrology falls to pieces when held up to statistical scrutiny. This means that it's wrong far more often than it's right, so she basically admitted right there that it's a load of rubbish.
Anyone can make predictions about someone else's life and get a few right, especially if they know some details of their subject's situation. Hand-waving claims of "serendipity" will not change this fact.
When you know this to be the case and you're still demanding that scientists and skeptics need to disprove your ideas, then I really don't see how the debate can be meaningfully furthered.
The way she denied that there's any scientifically measurable effect that causes astrology to work (she basically said that it's magic) before advising us to look into how quantum physics explains it was also striking in its self-contradiction. I have trouble understanding how she manages to hold such opposing views simultaneously without even noticing that she is doing to.
Of course she trotted out many other logical fallacies along the way as others have already pointed out, but those two points were what stood out for me in the interview.
Keep up the good work, chaps. I look forward to the next episode. - I also agree that Maynard did a great job with the interview, and I think it is a worthwhile addition to a great podcast. I don't want to hear this type of interview every week - I only have so much tolerance - but once a month or so would be good. All good skeptics must be prepared to at least listen to what the believers have to say 'from the horses mouth', as it were, rather than just from other skeptics.
To the interview then. First, I listened to this with my 13 year old daughter. She was the first to face-palm, probably because I was driving at the time, but pretty soon we had run out of hands to face-palm with. She spent the whole interview just shaking her head in disbelief that a grown woman could believe what was being said.
The non-sequitur of "quantum stuff is weird and is science, therefore my weird stuff must be science" demonstrates how quickly a meme can take hold in a community, even when they have no understanding of the actual science. The comparison is simply wrong, and the idea more than a little silly. That said, it is something we are hearing as an explanation for homeopathy, telepathy, astral projection and all manner of other unscientific bunk.
I also loved the claim that when taken as a whole, statistics show that astrology doesn't work - you have to look at the individual cases where it does work to find the proof. Isn't this just a perfect description of coincidence or chance ?
Much of the rest of what she had to say was simply nonsensical, contradictory, and frankly, often sad. More often than not she shot down her own case while trying to defend it.
I believe that Ms Adams sincerely wants the world to be this way, and probably believes much of what she actually says. However this must entail a large degree on self-delusion, wilful ignorance and cognitive dissonance - and that isn't good for anyone's mental state.
A most revealing interview. - A couple of years back I did an SZ survey and I recall mentioning that I'd like to hear interviews with "believers". Maynard's interview Jessica Adams was exactly what I wanted to hear (and also really well executed by both challenging her as well as allowing her to feel comfortable in sharing). I've been listening to these sort of skeptic podcasts weekly for the past four years and after a while you tune into the skeptical community mindset and lose touch with how people like Jessica think. It's refreshing to hear. Richard is correct, we need training- constantly(!)- and this was a perfect example.
And yes, frustrating as hell too. I felt like Tim Minchin in Storm - 'like a rabbit suddenly trapped in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap'. And of course, if we did successfuly prove her wrong, 'We’d as well be 10 minutes back in time, For all the chance you’ll change your mind'.
But we must continue to learn!
- Thank you for the chance to hear Jessica Adams. I am amazed at the things she said.. I wonder if she heard herself before this interview went out? Anyway, here is my 2cents worth.
Jessica says she did some study but not in Astronomy. I would hope that someone who makes a living in 'The Stars' would have a basic understanding of the real way the galaxy works
She says she gets advice from spirits. I guess she means she talks to them? There are 3 options here with this claim.
1. She is deluded and has mental issues and should seek medical help.
2. She is just plain lying.
3. The spirits she talks to are real and in that case she should apply for the JREF $1,000,000
The use of 'quantum' to justify her belief system is the biggest 'red flag' of all. Why is it that every crackpot out there uses quantum to support their ideas? Is it that it's the new buzz word for those wanting to abuse science? It does nothing to support her claims.
She is upset that Brain Cox called Astrology rubbish. I think Brian Cox has very good reason to do so given that he is a world expert in physics, a science with hundreds of years of proven results and theories.
She says that the burden of proof is on skeptics to prove Astrology wrong. This is about as wrong as you can get and is a pathetic attempt to lead us a dead end. The burden of proof is on and has always been on those making the claims.
According to Jessica there are some bad astrologers and good ones. Names please.
She makes the claim that astrology is a symbolic form of divination and bears no relationship to what astronomers see through telescopes. Still, she is happy to use the knowledge science brings us like the existence of Pluto. (Something astrologers had no clue about.)
Cannot understand her statement that the stars and planets have no effect on people as it's all magic. It's almost like someone talking who does not have a grip on reality.
The special pleading comes along as she says that astrology works but cannot be tested. Is that like saying you can turn invisible as long as no one is looking?
She says she is not just making stuff up as her predictions are so accurate. We need to see ALL her predictions before we judge how accurate she is.... but I forgot, it cannot be tested.
Jessica uses argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people") that concludes a proposition to be true because many believe it.
So the only reason she or other astrologers don't win the lottery is that this would lead to the end of the lottery? I cannot help but think this is one of the silliest statements I have ever heard, almost insulting.
There are many more logical fallacies but I'll leaves those to someone else.
I like the way Maynard conducted this interview and can we have some more like this? But not every week!
- Maynard, thanks for the great interview with Jessica Adams. Irrespective of the evidence (or probably more accurately the lack of) for astrology I personally found the interview an interesting study of logical fallacies. As a relative novice in terms of identifying logical fallacies there were quite a few that are readily identifiable.
1.Cherry Picking: Predicting a financial crisis in 2008. How specific was the prediction or is this a case of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy (retrodicting or perhaps a prediction based on the high probability of a financial crisis) Also how many times has it not predictions have failed to predict anything? Has Jessica ever looked at her success rate or is this a case of Confirmation Bias.
2.Special Pleading: Claiming that astrology falls down when statistically studied in order to preserve the magic. Has Jessica ever considered the fact that the reason why astrology doesn’t hold up to statistics is the fact that it is evidence for it not working (again another case of Cherry Picking).
3.Argumentum ad populum: Claiming that millions of people believe in astrology must mean that there is something to it (can anyone say “Power Balance”?)
4.Argument from authority: As if the Jessica’s co-host as a journalist turned astrologer has anything to do with the validity of astrology. I would also question the relevance of her qualifications to provide authority on this topic.
There also seemed to be a lack internal consistency in the claim that due to procession the constellations no longer have any relevance to modern day astrology. It does or it doesn’t? My Greek is a bit dodgy but I’m sure the root meaning for astro is stars.
What I did find personally egregious was the claim that it was up to science to disprove astrology. I am sorry Jessica but the onus is on astrologers to prove their unsubstantiated claims (and dare I say profiting from them). How have astrologers tested coincidence-synchronicity in order to back up their claims? I would suggest that coincidence-synchronicity is an example of False Correlation or Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
Also egregious was the use of Quantum Physics to justify the mechanism of astrology. I would suggest Jessica read John Gribbin’s excellent book “In Search of Schrodinger’s Cat” or listen to the SGU’s interview with Michio Kaku who categorically states that Quantum strangeness does not explain supernatural mechanisms. The difference between Quantum Physics and Astrology is that Quantum Physics is demonstrable and Astrology has so far not. Perhaps we need to label a new logical fallacy know as Argumentum ad Quantum.
Keep up the great show and I love the new theme tune. - I liked the interview. While I was hopping up and down, discouraged that I couldn't counter her arguments, ultimately I think it's good to hear clear-headed, intelligent believers in Woo -- to remind us that our "opponents" are not dumb. Thinking skeptically isn't easy -- if we simply say "bah" to everything, we're not thinking critically.
By the way, my two cents: I like the old theme song better. - So, you can't do astrology for groups - it has to be tailored to the individual. Except on her we page where her forecasts are for entire signs at once.
In order to understand the science you have to open your mind and believe first. That would be nothing like confirmation bias, would it?
Yeah, I'll take her word for it - and then apply all the acceptance her word deserves. None. - Really enjoyed the astrologer interview. I'd like to hear more along these lines since people like that don't need any editorializing they just condemn themselves with their own words.A far more effective way of showing how deluded they are than ranting against them.
I'd be quite happy if you could get Maynard to interview herbalists homeopaths feng shui advocates all those woo merchants. It could be a very rewarding ongoing series.
Maynard struck a good note,slightly skeptical but willing to hear her out.No need to be an attack dog.People who don't want these type of interviews are to my mind not as open minded as they think since to me skepticism means giving the other side a chance to convince me of they're case.
The astrologer didn't because she really presented no evidence, just made an appeal to Believe.
I tell people I don't believe in evolution then wait a beat to see the shocked look on their face then say "No I don't believe in evolution I accept the evidence" To me thats the essence of skepticism. - The idea of interviewing ‘the other side’ is reminiscent of the attitude of ‘Righteous Indignation’ and an antipodean version could be enlightening. The interview with the astrologer was interesting and frustrating in equal measure, and I think Maynard did a great job at being neutral and non-confrontational which still asking sceptical questions. I will admit I was a bit gobsmacked at how quickly quantum was introduced into the discussion and found the number of logical fallacies quite astounding. However, this was largely to be expected and provided no new arguments for the validity of astrology.
There was one section which struck me as particularly interesting because is seemed to suggest internal inconsistency. If I remember correctly the reason why astrologers didn’t all go and predict the lottery numbers was that this would be interference on a grand scale and wasn’t allowed (who did the ‘not allowing’ wasn’t clear). However, later on Ms Adams stated that in a book she wrote she predicted the recent pensions crisis and if people had listened to her advice they could have protected their investments. Surely, if everyone listened to her advice, this would have led to interference on as grand a scale, if not grander, than fixing a few lottery draws? Taking that to its logical conclusion, doesn’t every action we take have (potentially) grand effects? If astrologers are limited to only providing insignificant insights into people’s lives then what is the point in astrology, and if they are able to provide significant insights, then at what level do they become too significant to be allowed to be imparted?
Overall, I found the interview to be an interesting addition to the podcast and would really enjoy hearing more interviews of a similar nature from time to time.
- "You can't look at astrology as a whole, you have to look at the individual cases." Yeah... that's the just the problem.
If you make lots of predictions, some of them are going to be right, it would be near impossible for all of your predictions to be wrong. So you can't just look at the cases where you turned out to be right. The only way you can properly tell if astrology is signifigant or worth it is to look at it as a whole and see if it does any better than chance would suggest.
And she said it herself "if you look at astrology as a whole [...] it doesn't work." - First I thought Maynard did quite a nice job in his interview having a civil thoughtful discussion without it breaking down into pandering or an argument. Righteous Indignation is known for this style interview, and it is good to see it in other skeptical podcasts.
Ms. Adams' interview was chock full of logical fallacies, which I suspect she either would not comprehend or think are irrelevant. A few that stick out in my head to me are the big one of Special Pleading that astrology does not fit within mathematical constructs, and what I heard was "you have to believe for it to work." This to me is a way to make it unfalsifiable and beyond the scope a decent scientific controls. Convenient, yes?
There was argument of authority (of the masses) in that millions of people use it, so it must work. Also, post hoc ergo propter hoc, in that there is a hit and it was predicted and therefore their must be a connection. The hits are remembered and the misses forgotten. She said something in a book about a negative financial event, and therefore, the stars were read correctly.
A few things that I found somewhat surprising and frustrating was the now banal appeal to quantum mechanics for how astrology works. At the same time Adams also seemed to be saying the stars do not actually have an influence on a person, but only are some manner of divination. Are the stars having an influence with quantum mechanics or they are just a way for some greater intelligence to inform people of the future?
If I listened to the ep again I am sure there are a lot of other logical fallacies mulling around in the interview, but these of a few thoughts the next day. I enjoyed the interview a great deal, and while I would not suggest the show spotlight a believer interview each week, I do think it is educational and enlightening for such interviews to occur a few times a year.
(For the record, I listened to the episode while walking the dog in the snow, and shoveling the snow.)
The revised theme song is fantastic. It is a keeper. - Here's a few points that struck me about the interview with the Astrologer that I remember from one casual listen to your fine show.
1.The astrologer claimed it worked on individuals but could not be statistically shown to work which is an obvious contradiction.
2.She also suggested the act of trying to measure it somehow magically changed the statistics , which while questionable this would be a major scientific discovery in it's self and easy to prove.
3. She claims quantum physicists consider parallel universes are real and this somehow supports her position. This is untrue, and quantum physics does not suggest magic or spiritualism are real or justified in any way.
4.She claimed all astrologers all do it differently, and there is no formal method involved in astrology. This translates to "we just make up a system we think works" making astrologers no different from any psychic. She used this as an excuse that astrology cannot be tested in a lab, this is clearly a confused argument.
So there you have it I can think of more but I can't be bothered as we are talking about Astrology after all.
Enjoy
- Kammueller - Maybe you could have put it another more polite way. However what I wanted the listeners to the Zone to experience was what we, the skeptical investigators, have to deal with time and time again. What I hope for is that people will take apart her statements and point out such things as logical fallacies, contradictions, special pleading and such like. Think of it as part of your training.
Post your comment:
