Autonemesis

I can reproduce those results. No problem. I'll take your astrological program, shuffle up all the blurbs that it spits out when a particular astrological symbol or relationship is encountered, and produce a random set of them. I will present this set of randomly selected interpretations to any person or persons you designate, including your best customers if you dare, so long as you do not tell them what the test is all about, that I have not actually cast a horoscope based on their birth data. I'll go through all the motions, show them a chart, talk about this that or the other thing, only it's all bogus, you see. The interpretations are selected randomly from all the interpretations your program is capable of selecting.

At the end, my results will be as good as your results. I will be able to get just as many people to agree that my randomly selected interpretations apply to them, as you can get to agree that your interpretations derived from meticulously plotted charts apply to them.

Care to accept that challenge?

By the way, I have never heard Volker, or any other astrologer for that matter, claim that gravity was the force that mediated astrological influence. Attacking this idea is attacking a strawman, even if Randi does it.

Volker.Doormann

Fine.

Volker.Doormann

Jesse,

the kernel of our disagreement is that I claim, that the truth that 'a dog who do recognize his master out of ten men' is not to be changed in any way by fails of the dog, 'recognizing democratic politicians correctly', while you do claim, that this fails must be taken into account, measuring the dogs abilities using statistics.

We must not agree on this. But I am tired to argue on this further.

Volker

Lobstrosity

It's not a matter of the truth, it's a matter of the statistical significance of such an event. That's the whole thing you brought to the table with your statistical analysis above. Jesse is simply pointing out that your entire analysis is faulty, and rightly so.

Jesse

Volker, that was not the question I asked. What I asked was this:

Please, answer this question with a simple "yes" or "no" (but feel free to go into more detail after doing so if you wish).

Jesse

By the way, the reason this analogy is fallacious is because we can identify in advance two totally different categories the dog is being tested on, identifying its master vs. identifying politicians; so, it would be simple to do a new test where we only tested the dog on identifying its master. Although you are not ever allowed to throw out data on a test you've already performed when computing the significance level (I promise you that all statisticians would agree with me on this), you certainly are allowed to redesign the test in a way that you think will result in a higher proportion of hits the next time around.

In contrast, with astrology I'd argue that you can find no consistent difference between "hit" statements and "miss" statements that would allow you to redesign the test in a way that would make the horoscopes have a higher rate of success. If we were finding that all the "hits" were about personality while all the "misses" were about other things like family, money, love life etc., then we could make new profiles that talk only about personality, and hope that the ratio of hits to misses would be higher next time around. Can you spot any such pattern in the hits and misses in Lobstrosity's profile, Volker? Can you think of a way to edit astrological profiles so that if we picked a new person and gave them an edited profile, you'd predict the fraction of hits would be much higher?

Secular Pinoy

Volker, Patrick wants you to answer this:

Volker.Doormann

Patrick? Tricky Patrick? Hmmm ... OK.

The character of a person is stamped from (='in harmony with') the planetary pattern of the moment of birth. The moment of birth is the moment, when the baby takes its first breath.

A calculated 'due date' has no meaning in astrology.

Of course is the character stamp different to a stamp that happens to an other time as the real time of birth, because the neuron structures building the character are initialized in the moment of birth.

That what is stamped prior birth is the physical structure of the body from DNA, but not the structures of the mentality of the person. No one can show by scientific prove, that a character of a person is determined in DNA. It is pure fantasy of scientists.The character of a person which is being born a week earlier is different to that later date, because the geometrical planetary configuration at the birthplace is different. One cannot say neither this happens in dramatically changing nor in minor changing. Some structures given by slow moving planets may change not, but other structures given by the phase of the earth rotation can change in great.

More than the astrological sign, which means the angular position of the sun measured from the spring equinox vector position in one of twelve 30° ranges, the angles between the celestial bodies at the moment of birth have a meaning. In my interpretation software, I spend only one short sentence to the sun sign, from about 25kbyte text for the individual analysis in total. There are only twelve sun signs, and this is not very meaningful. It is not known, why. It is only known, that. Only planetary angle distances, which have integer values of i = 4*cos^2(angle) seems to be relevant to a specific ability of the character, and the relative angle position to the earth horizon is related to specific areas of life (For example, if most of the planets are above the horizon in the 6 houses this is very different to that, if they are below the horizon. From this a birth in the night is related to very different operational field's, as a birth at noon).Yes. For an Aries Sun, a birth in the year 2004 must be later then March 20th 06:49 AM UTC; prior to this the Sun is in Pisces.

BTW. Around the date of 2003.08.27 there are some geometric
planetary geocentric configurations relating to energeticful crash's and earthquakes.

Volker

Volker.Doormann

Jesse,

I claim, I can specify a character of a born human from the laws of nature each time repeatable in a reasonable understandable order by meaningful words to be right. I have given a prove to this here, and this prove is acknowledged by the test person in about 24 specific properties as true. I claim this because of knowledge about the true nature of this relations. Because the relations are reasonable and understandable from the laws of nature and are each time repeatable, it is obvious, that this relations also can computed by a simple algorithm processor, and indeed, that what was analyzed in that prove, is evaluated 100% from fixed rules (except some minor editions on words etc.). Astrologers do claim such similar claims since ever.

One can have interest in the nature of this laws or not. It seems you have no interest in this part of laws of nature, as many here, although no one here is able to give a scientific prove about the cause for an individual character of a person. Science has no knowledge about it, and no individual here is able to relate his/her character to a causality in nature, no individual has any knowledge about it.

Science can learn, that next to the physical nature there exist a nature of mentality and character not spoken about the spiritual nature of truth and love, and science can learn, that this part of nature has an reasonable understandable order alike the nature of the 4 physical forces without any contradiction in principle.

To evaluate an individual human character adequate and an analysis to this, it needs more that statistics and the blue eyes of skeptic test persons. I think it is senseless to discuss on this matter further, as long as there is absolute no acknowledgement to any of that output claimed from astrology rules, and as long as no one ask, why astrology can make such detailed interpretations, acknowledged by a test person to be true.

Thank you

Volker

Arken

I feel this point that since I haven't seen anyone else do it, I should point out volker's 'debate' style which is to argue with someone until he cannot possibly refute what they say and then refuse to talk to them for a convoluted reason. It's getting a bit silly.