Hey Night, I think in your eagerness to refute my point you're missing a significant part of it. I'm not attempting to make a case for or against. Personally I neither "believe" or "disbelieve" in astrology. I'm not quite sure where you get the idea that I have a strong vested interest in the topic; I'm trying to look at it objectively here and shed any preconceptions I may have.
Originally Posted by ragashree
There has been little serious scientific attempt to validate or invalidate astrology because it does not fit the belief systems of most of those who practice and fund science, I suspect.
No. There is little scientific interest in astrology because it is a non-science.
You're rather begging the question there. Or maybe just reporting the views of those that do. Either way, it's just a belief; there's no basis in evidence.
Here. You even answer your own question earlier in your analysis.
Originally Posted by ragashree
If a genuine correlation can be established, with a degree of statistical association between aspects significantly higher than would occur by chance, astrology has the potential to be a useful psychological tool, if not a scientifically falsifiable one.
Fair enough?
I wasn't asking a question that I noticed, so I'm not sure what you mean here. Anyway, there are levels of falsifiability. We can falsify the
phenomenon by disproving its very existence to a reasonable standard of certainty; if this cannot be done and it's necessary to tentatively accept it, there would be an impetus for further work and perhaps trying to identify a mechanism. In the absence of a truly plausible mechanism (I don't personally think one has been proposed at the moment) we are in no position to falsify one using "hard" scientific data, so there's simply no point in engaging with that at present. We are to some extent in a position to falsify the very existence of astrology as a predictive tool with well designed psychological testing, however.
I see this a lot with New Agers (not necessarily you, ragashree), in that they try to make a fuzzy connection between legitimate theory - like quantum uncertainty - and the validity of their pet theory on the basis that quantum uncertainty is not very well understood at this point, much like their theory fails to be understood.
What hard data can you offer that connects quantum uncertainty with astrology?
I'm not attempting to do anything so ambitious (and probably unwise) or taking a position that assumes such a connection even exists. If you'd care to reread my post you may see, but in any case I'll state it here; I'm merely providing it as an corresponding example in "hard" science of a phenomenon being accepted because it has been verified by observation, where mechanism is not understood. This doesn't imply any sort of relationship in my view, nor am I necessarily assuming that there would be even if a case WAS made for the existence of the actual phenomenon. It would be a reasonable inference, however, that IF a phenomenon was demonstrated, an explanation would lie outside Newtonian physics, therefore probably in the qauntum realm, because there is nothing in Newtonian physics that could explain it. I'm not, however, assuming that anything WILL be discovered.
What hard data can you offer that connects quantum uncertainty with astrology?
Developing a bridge between psychometrics and quantum mechanics sounds more like misdirection away from the faults of astrology and onto an ideal that suggests somehow that astrology and quantum principle share a commonality because they are individually difficult to understand (for profoundly different reasons, of course).
I don't see any real validity with the comparison beyond distorted rhetoric.
As I said, I'm not making that argument. I have no particular reason to think there would be a link. Your points would be correct if that's what I was actually trying to do, but you're mischaracterising my argument, which is a skeptic and uncommitted one.
Sounds like you have a good working methodology to prove your particular belief.
More to try to establish whether there is any objective value in astrology or not. I'm not trying to "prove" anything, but a proper large-scale scientific study is really the only way to assess its objective validity. What we seem to have at present is a host of a priori beliefs on either side. Doubtless even if disproved plenty of people would continue to view it as a valid form of entertainment, but that's not strictly relevant to whether the study is worth making.
And, no - the debate isn't "going around in circles". Astrology is entertainment. The only real debate is whether or not you individually find it entertaining.
It does go round a bit if you mischaracterise people's arguments as being something they're not! I can see this issue raises such strong opinions that it's difficult to wade in with a skeptic view and convince anyone that such a thing can actually exist, but that is, strangely enough, what I'm endeavouring to hold on this issue. Maybe you've dealt before with people who've tried to argue the case (a flakey one, I agknowledge) you're trying to pin on me, but that isn't my problem really, nor does it change what I'm saying.
The onus is on you. Providing negative evidence (as in "your belief system is skewed because you adhere to x philosophy") doesn't provide positive data proving your theory.
Please show me where I was trying to "prove" a theory, or what the theory was! I must say it had escaped me! I'm only saying that those with faith in the scientific method have a priori beliefs of their own which are equally capable of leading them to a conclusion which lacks a solid evidential foundation. If you want to argue
against astrology, the best way of doing it in my view is by showing some solid evidence for its non-existence. The converse applies if you want to argue for it being a valid psychological discipline (which in my view is the only place it could potentially fit in science at present).
