Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^mxxcon:
>> ^chilaxe:
1. There's pro-science media available.

correction. pro-science media bias


What do you mean by that? You're using a computer to voice your opinion, so it seems like you're a supporter of science.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^chilaxe:
1. There's pro-science media available.

correction. pro-science media bias

Neil seems like a great guy.

I think there were 3 parts to his answer.

1. There's pro-science media available.
2. Kids aren't the problem, adults are the problem.
3. Science funding is such a good deal, we'll have no choice but fund it.

#1: This doesn't seem to address the statistics that show US students on average lagging behind students from other countries. (If you look at only the top half of students in each country, however, it would probably be more even, and the top half are where tomorrow's science and technology professionals are drawn from, but that's not the kind of thing Neil would talk about.)

#2: Today's kids will be tomorrow's horoscope-reading adults, so I'm not sure what he meant by this. Maybe he meant they'll only turn out to be superstitious if we raise them to be, so we should promote a culture of science.

#3: This sounds like a normative statement (we ought to have no choice but fund it), but it's presented as a positivistic statement (we will have no choice but fund it). Science funding (e.g. the budget of the National Institutes of Health) is currently at a historic low as a percentage of GDP, so his point doesn't seem consistent with the data.


I think it's nice for a public intellectual to be so oriented toward fun, but imho the reality is that there are costs to that attitude. I admire him for the great job he's doing as a science advocate, but I think it's good to encourage attention for the other science advocates who are less fun and more about data precision without caring about which way the data goes.

Your video, Neil deGrasse Tyson - "Children do not read horoscopes!", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Homeopathy is all bullshit. That's not really anything you can argue. It's very clearly bullshit. Same with cleansing auras, crystals and horoscopes.

Acupuncture, pressure points and other actual "massaging" things do exist to some degree, what their actual effect is, is still hotly debated (as we can see above). I'm not convinced that it is entirely placebo. In fact I would think that there is a beneficial effect to that, but them I'm not an expert so I don't know the finer details.

Also *promote

So, basically, my horoscope has been lying to me?

LOL, when the anthropologist told that poor doophus his wife would be eager to share the beaver.

Bunch of spineless twits. "It's not our responsibility, it's government" NO IT'S NOT! You are directly to blame if your child dies from lack of vaccination.

I would think that people who choose not to vaccinate are the same people, who read horoscopes, use "alternative" medicine and routinely pray to some sort of space ghost.

upvote for inclusion of clip from "Kentucky Fried Movie" !
(the news report with horoscopes where she was shot with arrow)

>> ^Xaielao:
The simple horoscopes in the daily paper form of Astrology is bunk and everyone knows it. But true Astrology, the type that has been practiced for millennial, is actually very insightful and very mathematical. Whether you believe in it or not as someone who has practiced it in the past it can hit on small details in someones life that 1: are not remotely common and 2: uncannily accurate such as very specific dates of major events in peoples lives. When I meet people who read their daily astrological prediction in the newspaper and are like 'omg thats so like me' I have to laugh as they are buying into the bullshit. I try and tell them, 'look, there are hundreds of millions of people with your sign, a general daily reading based just on your sign isn't going to tell you jack squat and is almost always going to be basic generalization.'
For example, a lot of people don't know anything about classic astrology and it's seaming coincidences. Such as the fact that a great many American presidents and other world leaders very often have some particularly significant similarities in their natal charts. That doesn't mean nobody else does but in the hundreds of natal charts I've produced over the many years (though I haven't done any in half a decade,) nobody has ever had that similar pattern. Again thats not scientific evidense but if your looking for that, your not going to find it. However it's fantastic coincidental evidense.


its all bollox, you're talkin complete sh*t, its all been proven to be all bollox. if you want, watch stuff derren brown has done, where he's more accurate than your so called proper astrologists, the difference being he freely admits its all bollox and has nothing to do with anything outside the realms of science, you can do it through probability mostly but there are all sorts of techniques.
its all bollox. NEXT!

However it's fantastic coincidental evidense.

No, its just bunk. Same as the "bible code", the 9.11 "number theories" etc etc. Its always the same things, the different constellations on a circle, you can draw lines in squares or triangles etc and find all the "strong connections" between what is at best general statements, e.g "Leadership skills, but also humble" Take a look at this astrologer attempting to read James Randi's Horoscope: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flZXJ-Ewsn4

The simple horoscopes in the daily paper form of Astrology is bunk and everyone knows it. But true Astrology, the type that has been practiced for millennial, is actually very insightful and very mathematical. Whether you believe in it or not as someone who has practiced it in the past it can hit on small details in someones life that 1: are not remotely common and 2: uncannily accurate such as very specific dates of major events in peoples lives. When I meet people who read their daily astrological prediction in the newspaper and are like 'omg thats so like me' I have to laugh as they are buying into the bullshit. I try and tell them, 'look, there are hundreds of millions of people with your sign, a general daily reading based just on your sign isn't going to tell you jack squat and is almost always going to be basic generalization.'

For example, a lot of people don't know anything about classic astrology and it's seaming coincidences. Such as the fact that a great many American presidents and other world leaders very often have some particularly significant similarities in their natal charts. That doesn't mean nobody else does but in the hundreds of natal charts I've produced over the many years (though I haven't done any in half a decade,) nobody has ever had that similar pattern. Again thats not scientific evidense but if your looking for that, your not going to find it. However it's fantastic coincidental evidense.

>> ^alien_concept:
Think you need to change the title to horoscopes and not astrology, just cos that IS what he's talking about


OK, I've changed the title for the sake of clarity.

You can see James Randi speak about his own personal horoscope here:

http://www.videosift.com/video/James-Randi-speaks-about-his-own-personal-horoscope

>> ^HadouKen24:
This is a very poor experiment to disprove astrology. The daily horoscope has almost nothing to do with classical astrology. It didn't even exist until 1930, while astrology has been around for thousands and thousands of years.
I'm not saying that astrology works. Much better tests have been run which show that it doesn't--tests that don't rely on newspaper astrology. But what Tyson advocates here isn't good science.


But it isn't classical astrology that people that believe in astrology care about...which makes the experiment totally legit imo.