Lobstrosity

That, statistically speaking, astrology is no more accurate than a random characteristic generator. In simpler terms, it proves that astrology does not work in any useful way.

Volker.Doormann

I have never heard, that for anything, that is not, could be given a proof. That must be a kind of magic (“I am very sure, that I have precisely heard that the car driver didn’t has blown his horn”).

My understanding is, that the situation, that 'Researchers looked at more than 100 different characteristics, including occupation, anxiety levels, marital status, aggressiveness, sociability, IQ levels and ability in art, sport, mathematics and reading - all of which astrologers claim can be gauged from birth charts.' and 'The scientists failed to find any evidence of similarities between the "time twins", however.' proves nothing.

If one would argue in this way, then each failing of finding anything would be a proof for its non-existence. But the simple truth is, that existence only can be proved, but not ‘things’, which have no existence. This 'scientific result' is a send up of people who are reasonable and honest to scientific rules, and a backup to believers in magic and superstition.

Volker

Stephen T-B

Hello Volker.Doormann.
Can you tell us where and when the next terrorist event claiming more than five lives will occur?
OR
When and where the next earthquake of magnitude 6 or more will occur?
OR
When and where the next extreme weather event, resulting in the deaths of 20 or more people, will occur?
OR
Prince Charles was born in Buckingham Palace, London, on November 14, 1948; are you able to tell us when he will marry Camilla Parker-Bowles?

Best wishes
ST-B

Armchair dissident

I believe the answer to that is probably "over the Queens' dead body" (born April 21st, 1926 if that helps)

ComestibleVenom

"Oh, all along I claimed that magic does nothing detectable. Therefore, the fact that it is undetectable supports my claims about it. QED"

Lobstrosity

Your understanding is faulty.


Remember, Volker, it has already been clearly demonstrated that you have no working knowledge of statistical analysis. If you did then you wouldn't make such silly straw man arguments as you do here. Believe me, anyone who understands science and statistics sees clearly the implications of this study.

Volker.Doormann

Who cares about your magic, if there is no argument, as ever in your posts. Thats the joke of the day in an scientific infidels forum.

Lobstrosity

Do you know what the word "magic" means? It seems like your understanding of English with regards to this word might be faulty as well. The only person who has ever appealed to magic is you, Volker. Magic is the only mechanism by which you postulate astrology to work. Jesse has given you substantial evidence for why one must consider both hits and misses when computing statistical significance but you somehow managed to ignore every single one of those points. I'm not going to bring those up again when you have amply demonstrated such willful blindness--it's obvious you wouldn't respond to them even if I did. As such I'm just going to tell you that your understanding is faulty and your appeal to magic and superstition is silly. The scientific community rejects astrology for a reason: it's not scientific and scientific evidence such as this refutes it. It is only your poor grasp of science and statistical analysis that leads you to believe that the study does not seriously call into question the validity of astrology.

Volker.Doormann

Who cares on ignorant sceptics, if there is a reality to understand. Sleep well.

Armchair dissident

This is just dripping in irony. Given the lengths you have gone to in order to unsuccessfully demonstrate how scientific your view of astrology is.

I think then, that the answer to your question is: you do.