Vedic astrologer vs. a skeptic

So do you need both palms?

You don't mind if I pick a random person or two and scan their palms and see what you get?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Did any of that actually mean anything?
Studies have been done to find out if there is any scientific basis for astrology.
The answer was unequivocal: no.
Any drivel from you about moons, pails and 2000 ft of vision is (as is usual with your posts) unfounded, unrelated bullshit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I'm saying that despite one that tracks star movements and the other not, that they both roughly come up the equal with their claims, give or take some percentage points.

The Zodiac people even though not keeping up with the star movements are still rolling along at whatever percentage you want to give them, but for all intents unchanged. I'm an Arian they say, but I should be a Pisces if star movement over the last 2000 years was taken into account. I figure that the Zodiac astrologer who is reading me should have their accuracy drop severely if they say I'm Arian when I should be a Pisces. But there is no such indication. Here's a thought: Who was ahead in the percentage race 2000 years ago?

Vedic astrologers should be miles ahead if Zodiac astrologers are using false star positions. It shouldn't even be close. But it is close. This suggests to me that there is something more than meets the eye going on here. That something is human psychology. I'll wager that no two Vedic or Zodiac astrologers will read the same due in large to one being better at psychology than the other.

Have a laugh with this one: I was checking my Zodiac sign and believe it or not I discovered that I share the same birthday as Richard Dawkins. Oh ya, Leonard Nimoy too. God isn't mysterious, he's just having a little fun.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree that psychology plays a part in all this, but in a different manner than you suggest - namely, in the form of self-fulfilling prophecies:

Many of us here in the West have grown up believing we were born within this or that zodiac sign, and the people around us also knew about our zodiac sign. We also knew what is considered to be characteristic for people born in each particular zodiac sign: a taurus is big on commitment, a gemini isn't, and so on, a libra is this, a lion is that, and so on and on.

It seems to me that many people align themselves with the expectations and descriptions of their zodiac sign, and one's zodiac sign can become the norm according to which a person shapes themselves and according to which other people shape the person - a self-fulfilling prophecy. E.g. "You're a taurus, you're supposed to be big on commitment" - and then the psychological and emotional blackmail resulting from this, which is probably the actual culprit that a person aligns themselves with the description of their zodiac sign, not the knowledge of the zodiac sign alone. And much less the actual fact about the sign they were born in.

A simple test would then be to administratively change the birth date of a person so that it falls into another zodiac sign and keep the person and all their relatives and friends etc. ignorant of that change, or to keep the people ignorant of astrology altogether - and see what happens, if they still grow up to be in accord with their actual zodiac sign or not. I think they would not, but that they would instead more likely grow up in line with the zodiac sign they were raised in/with.


Conversely, zodiac astrologers have an easy job, as the person is actually likely already socialized in their zodiac sign, so there is a lot that is predictable about the person.


The reasons why zodiac astrologers and Vedic astrologers both seem to do relatively well at readings could be quite different, though.

 

Oh I see so now in your exspression studies have been useless, in determining the effects of planets and stars.
Really you must hang out and read studies of Adolesecents..... appearantly those without the ablity to make deduction of cause and effect given they found no correlation of gravitional effect on earth life.

What I see from you Oli is that you can make a declaration, (which most people can do, and yours are appearantly negative coined in wait for a awnser), But you can not reach out and find your awnser.
So clearly you are the one that lacks, and are left with the bullshit you can pick up.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Neagative coin coversation such as your usally comes from a child that is without awarness and so out of surprises from the unknown is in disbelief. Your appears to be different more like the kind that would hurt another if given the chance because the vision of such mind is so limited. you can be fed good information but that does not help because your rotten ( Mind is no good). :bawl:

So to make a end I asked you to provide some evidence to your lame attempt at defining astology as false. All i read from you was that someone else has said it was false, and that in your opinion anything I said was bullshit.

As for me I have enough exsperince at this, and know my way around.... I could at anytime set the standard for you or your failed scientist to make scientific observation.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But you Oli can not even find your mind. Let me help you understand that last phrase.....The brain and the mind are two different set organizations. ( or did you already know that.... make sure you tell me if did know that alreadly).



DwayneD.L.Rabon

 

You do realize this is unintelligible?

 

In my expression?
No, the scientific studies done to see if there is any factual basis basis for astrology as a valid predictor have shown that there is no such basis. It's not "my expression".

And these studies would be...?
I note that you have, as usual, failed to provide any back up to your arguments, you merely spout rubbish and expect to be taken seriously.

That's your problem: what you see is not what is presented.
I have told you the facts and all you can do is talk about "reaching for an answer".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Learn the difference between eisegeisis and exegesis.

Specious and fatuous double-talk such as yours usually comes from a half-wit who can't actually provide any support for his arguments.

I'd like to be fed any information, but it doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

So you can't google?
You have insufficient interest to have read any studies yourself until this "debate" started?
So much for your interest in science...
Anyone with a genuine interest should have gone through this under their own steam yeras (if not decades) before now.
Try http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=astrology debunked&meta=
for a start.

Yes, I've seen your "standards" of science.
Please don't set them for me, I like to aim higher than a four-year old could manage while asleep.

Again you come out with the double talk.
What possible bearing could it have on the facts?

 

Yes. I can believe that. Still human psychology and it fits.

I'd like to see either astrologer do the readings of people who have been held in a captivity all or most of their lives. (i.e. the recent Austrian House of Horrors).

Greenberg, I could never believe astrological claims. It just sounds so ridiculous to me. So many paranormal reports, some tied to religion, never ever pan out. In fact the number is probably close to zero if one allows for a good guess or coincidence now and then. If some women can be led to believe menstruation is punishment from God then anything is possible.

 

Hey what happened to kmguru? I want to see this palmistry at 89% in action!

 

As much as I would like to think I am special - any astrology report I have so far heard about me was true. There are two points I need to make about this trueness:

One -
Now, by this, I don't mean to imply that the process by which the astrology report was arrived at, is valid. It could be, or not - personally, I do not have a way to verify it.

I do know though that I have been to some extent raised in accord with my zodiac sign and many people in my life have held me responsible to my zodiac sign - and I think this is why I came to be so much in accord with my zodiac sign. Hence the claims of zodiac astrologers are true about me.


Two -
I am like what the zodiac astrology claims - but I am also many other things. The problem, as I see it, with zodiac astrology is that it focuses only on some parts of the human character or only on some situations, but not on all.

I can read the horoscope claims for any sign - and they all fit to me; it's just that none of them fits me all of the time or in all situations. And I know at least some other people have the same experience.

I do not have any first-hand experience with Vedic astrology, though, so I can't say anything how those claims would fit me.


All in all, I don't think zodiac astrology is ridiculous, but I do think it is limited and that it requires a specifically limited mindset to take its words for gold.

I find that if there is anything to be criticized in all this, it is not zodiac astrology, but people's willingness to focus only on a limited aspect of their existence and believe this is all there is.

Astrology (zodiac or Vedic) basically deals with karma, in one way or another. Many people seem to feel really obligated to act fatalistically in line with their karma.

Eh? No.

 

Its called confirmation bias.

 

Its called cold reading and people who are good at it are pretty amazing.

 

There was no overall comment by Shermer at the end of the video,
but I think I can guess what he would have said.

I imagine that he would have said that the results looked impressive,
but point out that they were not done under scientific conditions.

He might have added that if Armstrong can replicate the results he got here in a properly controlled experiment,
then he may prove the truth of astrology.
Usually, once all visual and verbal cues are eliminated, so does the psychic ability, but maybe Armstrong will be an exception.

Another way of proving or disproving his abilities would be to take that statement about the woman's bushy eyebrows,
Apparently, he knew this not because the woman was practically sprouting hair before his eyes, but because of something in her birth chart.
All we have to do is to find a hundred people born under this hairy influence and measure their eyebrow density against a control group.

I'll predict the outcome. There will be no statistical difference.

 

Well i am not a Swahili bushman.
But i like to make a point regarding this.
I am from India and i can tell you that the predictions made by the astrologers here are entirely along different lines. They are more intune with the local sensibilities.
As in when you are going get married. how long you will live and such. They wont make predictions regarding eyebrows/profession/dance vocation/ martial arts etc.
I say give this guy the birth dates of people from a fairly larger demography ranging over the whole world. It would be much harder to make general prediction over cultural barriers.

I will tell you why I think this exercise is statistically flawed. For one the predictions are extremely general, Oftentimes having only a few variables.
Eg
marital status-You could be married/single/divorced. that is 1/3
Hobbies- The common ones painting/ singing/dancing/martal arts/sports etc
Relationship with father-good/bad 1/2
The rest of them are the regular generalization; the "giving person" "sad event in your early life" "made tough choice in the past 5 years".

 

I thought the most interesting part of the video was when they switched the readings for the last two ladies. When the readings were switched they reported an accuracy of something like 30%.

But when they switched the readings back, both ladies reported an accuracy of 90% plus. To me this suggests there is something worth considering here, and definitely worth a closer look. Keep in mind he did this without seeing the people at all.

 

i am interested in how you could sum up in a nutshell the diff between western and vedic... i have done western astro for 30 years and find it very accurate a lot of times... i am a doctor and do every patient i see. dont always tell them what i see, but its a great help to understand their inner dynamics and source of ease and dis-ease (i use homeopathic medicine) .
Could i do both systems together? thanks for info... berkstao

 

Wow, what absolute hogwash.

The astrologer is given the person's gender as well as their date, time, and place of birth. This alone is quite a bit of information to work with. Name and place of birth (why would these be necessary anyway for astrology) will give strong clues as to their physical description as well as obvious cultural traits. Age is another excellent predictor of life experiences. Additionally many of the guesses that we were shown would apply to anyone (life changes or car trouble in the last couple of years *rolleyes*).

(e.g.I predict that Antony Spumoni, 36 years of age, born in Roma Italy on October 13th at 6:52 AM will have bushy eyebrows and dark skin. I predict that he will have had only one marriage and more than 2 children. I predict that he does not own a car and either walks, bikes, or rides a moped to work. I predict that he lives in an apartment building, that he loves his children very much but feels some distance between him and his wife and that he feels a strong attraction to another woman.)

~Raithere

 

meanwhile, when they switched readings, the accuracy dropped to something like 30% ....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Which makes perfect sense.

Betsy Jansen born December 13th, 1994 at 3:32AM in Wichita Kansas. Who I predict, likes hamburgers and pizza. Is unmarried. Is physically active. Has at least one pet and has light colored hair and pale skin.

Now switch her prediction with Antony's.

That I know enough about these people to make a few probable guesses also makes it likely that switching the guesses around will make them inaccurate. Mere probabilistic hocus pocus designed to impress an audience but meaning very little. Would the same accuracies and incompatibilities apply if the two people being switched were siblings born 15 months apart? What if we selected people whose birthplace was very different from the place they were raised? I also have to wonder why it is they didn't bother showing us all of the predictions. Certainly they wasted enough time blathering on repetitiously and showing us peoples reactions, they could have shown us exactly what was correct and what was incorrect. The sample population was miniscule and the predictions we got to see are completely within the scope of commonplace guesswork. Utterly unimpressive.


I find it telling that you don't have a response to my primary contention. Why should the astrologer need names or places of birth?

~Raithere