James Randi did this experiment years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dp2Zqk8vHw

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.

I agree that it's a poor scientific experiment; it's not supposed to be. This experiment is more of an argument against astrology to use with people who have no regard for rationality and reality.

In what way does daily horoscopes differ from classical astrology, by the way? Is classical astrology any less ludicrous?

classic astrology at the very least has an actual system, a method, to it that dates back atleast to the sumerians. newspaper horoscopes are just "blah blah blah" and date back to when newspapers got stupid.

Doesn't the people who write the daily horoscopes claim to adhere to the system and method of astrology? How can you say they don't?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect

Astrology has more in common with alchemy, mysticism, and archetypes than astronomy or empirical science.

I think Tyson is a rabid anti-Pheucanite!

I wonder what the horoscopes said for those people on the upper floors of the Twin Towers on 9/11?

but... i can tell a fellow aries from about 3 minutes of conversation. you have no idea how many times i have said "aries, right? when's your birthday?" and they are like "april". this normally happens after a heated aries-style argument, and never happens with virgo or one of those pussy signs.

shit i should claim my 1000000 dollars now. what's the address?

>> ^Haldaug:
Doesn't the people who write the daily horoscopes claim to adhere to the system and method of astrology? How can you say they don't?


Because astrology looks at individual birth dates and horoscopes lump together a whole months worth of people's birthday's into one. Not saying that astrology isn't crap, although from stuff i've read i'm inclined to buy into a lot of it. But clearly if you are being that unspecific about something - as horoscopes undoubtedly are - then you'd be a dumbass to take it on board.

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

>> ^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.

>> ^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

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.

The relationship between coincidences and cognitive biases is fantastic too.

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

>> ^MINK:
but... i can tell a fellow aries from about 3 minutes of conversation. you have no idea how many times i have said "aries, right? when's your birthday?" and they are like "april". this normally happens after a heated aries-style argument, and never happens with virgo or one of those pussy signs.
shit i should claim my 1000000 dollars now. what's the address?


And you conveniently forget all those times when it didn't work out that way.

That's what happens, that's the human mind for you.

The number of nurses who will tell you that the emergency room goes crazy because of the full moon is huge.

The studies? They show there is NO correlation at all. It's all people's minds and what they expect to happen vs what does happen. They remember more what they believed to be the outcome and tend to forget anything that doesn't bolster their position.

It's all absolute bunk

Another very good demonstration by Derren Brown.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btP_vy5cQq4

>> ^MINK:
but... i can tell a fellow aries from about 3 minutes of conversation.
>> ^spoco2:
And you conveniently forget all those times when it didn't work out that way.


Well obviously I knew you would say that, but i don't think i forgot 11 times for every one time i remembered.

So let's design an experiment: put me in a room, i interview 100 people... 10 are aries. how many people would i have to guess right for you to be satisfied that there is some kind of truth to my claim to be able to recognise Aries? (sorry, maybe there's a better design you can suggest, i am not really an expert in statistics and probability, let alone counting in base 12)

I would love to do this experiment, whatever the result. It would be more valid than the "debunking" in this video.

^ An experiment like that would indeed work well actually. As long as:

* The interviews never touched on things you could glean their date of birth from (time of year, not how old they are)
* Neither you nor I would know the star signs of anyone in the room until after you'd made your choices.
* You are completely free to ask them any questions in regards to their personalities such that you could glean their star sign from that information.

Statistically, it's probably not 1 in 12 will be Aries, it'll be some different number based on the area you're doing this test in (higher birthrates in different times of the year in different places).

And then we'd see how many you get right. Now, it's not just a 'I chose these 5, and 4 of them were Aries, look how good that is', it's also how many others did you not pick that were Aries.

It would be fascinating, and actually, I'm sure it's been done many times in the past.

Actually This test tested many well known astrologers.

This one describes past tests and another one where the astrologers were given all the birth information of the people and asked to glean their personalities from that information.

Again an abject failure. (And also demonstrates no agreement between the 50 astrologers, which you would imagine there SHOULD be if it were any sort of 'science')

It would be a great experiment to do, I'm always fascinated to see the outcomes of such things

>> ^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!

thanks spoco

but there's a difference between debunking charlatans and proving that all people who "feel something" are talking bollocks.

even if i took the test and failed, it wouldn't convince me 100%, it would just be dissuasive and show me that i personally don't have the "power".

i mean, i can't run 100m in under 10 seconds but some people can.

but i know it's like the old excuse "if just one UFO sighting is really extraterrestrial, then aliens exist". logically true but it just means "i am really unlikely to be right".

*debunked

Adding video to channels (Debunked) - requested by jimnms.