 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Bagpuss Date: 07 Sep 00 - 04:15 PM I remeber a famous experiment which showed that people who have less understanding of statistics, and underestimate the frequency of chance occurrences are more likely to believe in the supernatural. Has anyone taken part in this experiment? Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: katlaughing Date: 07 Sep 00 - 05:56 PM Kendall, you miss the point. One cannot abdicate responsibility because of karma, the gods, the stars, whathaveyou. It is by our very belief in such things, as tools to help us understand our choices, that we claim responsibility. If I shrug and say, "Well, I guess I must have bad karma, that's why that happened." Then, according to the teachings I've studied for so long, my next step would be to say "Thanks for the lessons learned. I accept what has happened, now what can I do to change my behavior so that I don't repeat that mistake, again?" Do you make fun of someone who reads the Bible and tries to live their life by it, or at least use it as a guide? Bagpuss, do you have any references? Do you know how much statistics can be manipulated, including those in "famous experiments?" |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: momnopp Date: 07 Sep 00 - 10:45 PM Well this thread is very cool and I haven't read the whole thing. But what I've read leads me to believe that a number of folks would be interested in the National Capital Area Skeptics. Their web site describes them as ". . .an independent nonprofit educational and scientific organization that promotes critical thinking and scientific understanding, with a focus on paranormal and fringe-science claims. NCAS is based in the Washington, Maryland, and Virginia community, where it serves as an advocate for science and reason, actively promoting the scientific method, rational inquiry, and education. NCAS is at the front lines in the battle against gullibility and fraud." They are apparently a member of the Skeptic Ring (who knew?!!!). |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Wolfgang Date: 08 Sep 00 - 05:55 AM katlaughing writes: Bagpuss, do you have any references? Do you know how much statistics can be manipulated, including those in "famous experiments?"
kat, Now for the first sentence: One reading is that you want to say 'back up or shut up' with a bit nicer words, but another reading is that you are genuinely interested. Assuming that this is true, here's my knowledge of the state of the art:
There are several hundred articles about individual differences in propensity to cognitive illusions, to suboptimal statistical reasoning, to illusions of memory,.... Some dozen of them use amount of belief in paranormal phenomena as a variable to study, usually but not necessarily in two groups, believers (sheep) and disbelievers (goats). What are the findings? Quite typical for the study of human behaviour, it is not easy to get a clear picture after so few articles (yes, some dozens is still 'few'). As for the first part of Bagpuss' statement ('less understanding of statistics' in sheep), there is mixed evidence (e.g., Blackmore, British J. of Psychology, 1997, 88, 683-689). It seems to be that general knowledge of statistics may be (there are several dissenting articles you can find referenced in Blackmore's) not worse in sheep (no article claims it is worse in goats). As for the second part of Bagpuss' statement (sheep 'underestimate the frequency of chance occurrences'), there is considerable and largely consistent evidence that this is true. They (sheep) seem to have a biased memory in counting their successes and failures (tend to remember their successes and to forget their failures; tend to underestimate how many successes are to be expected by chance alone; tend to see skill at work where there was nothing but chance; Blackmore and Troscianko, Brit. J. Psychology, 1985, 81, 455-468). This is consistent with other research on their memory. They forget disconfirming (for their paranormal belief system) evidence much more often than goats forget disconfirming evidence for their preconceptions. The memory is equally good for facts confirming the respective conviction (Wiseman and Morris, Brit. J. Psychology, 1995, 86, 113-125; Jones and Russel, European J. Social Psychology 1980, 10, 309-312). In short, their memory is good in general, but highly selective when it comes to things they do not (want to) believe. Paranormal belief correlates positively with general gullibility (Psychological Reports 1987, 61, 435-438). You want to hear something good for sheep, for a change? No problems, they are less likely to get a depression (sorry, no reference at hand, but I could find it easily). So, that should be enough for a start if you really want to know, kat. I'm happy to oblige in future, if you are interested in scientific research and in most cases I will be able to provide you references. If you only want to make a point in an argument, be careful. I'm here and watch even if I don't post. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Bagpuss Date: 08 Sep 00 - 06:31 AM Well you have lots of references above, so I won't repeat them. The experiment I was referring to has been replicated hundreds of times by people with no interest in falsifying data or manipulating results (including me). In this experiment, subjects were asked to produce a string of random numbers between one and six - as if they were throwing a die 100 hundred times in a row. "Sheep" were far more likely to underestimate the number of times the same number would come up consecutively than "goats". This suggests that belief in the paranormal is in part due to the person seeing patterns that they do not believe could be due to chance or co-incidence. However because they are underestimating coincidence, their belief may be in error. Like I say, I keep an open mind on certain phenomena and watch the research going on at Edinburgh into parapsychology with great interest. Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: sian, west wales Date: 08 Sep 00 - 09:15 AM Heck, I'll play,if you don't mind another Scorpio. 11.10 p.m., 24 October 1952, Port Colborne, Ontario, Canada I play guitar and piano equally poorly; my singing is better, marginally. Don't do any of it in public (any more) but, in the privacy of my own nest, it's mostly folk, religious and old time stuff ... but would like to be reincarnated as a blues singer. OK, and R&R is great when the girls get together for a bit of roguery. I'm also keen on the historical connections of songs, as well as a whole lot of stuff connected with the Oral Tradition. sian
|
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: GUEST,Mongo Date: 08 Sep 00 - 01:05 PM Bagbuss, that means Bearcat is in luck.... ...in a recent survey, 85% of some 1500 adults polled believed they had "above average intelligence"... :) I bet they're all skeptical, regular churchgoing, purely practical people... ...that secretly read their horoscopes, and toss spilt salt over their left shoulders... :) BTW, Bearcat, I sent my stats to you via the email address on your website, and I hope you have fun with it. I'd love to see the trends that emerge. |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Alice Date: 08 Sep 00 - 01:36 PM James Lippard (lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu): McGrew, John H., McFall, Richard M. A Scientific Inquiry Into the Validity of Astrology Journal of Scientific Exploration, 4, 75-83 1990
Six expert astrologers independently attempted to match 23 astrological birth charts to the corresponding case files of 4 male and 19 female volunteers. Case files contained information on the volunteers' life histories, full-face and profile photographs, and test profiles from the Strong-Campbell Vocational Interest Blank and the Cattell 16-P.F. Personality Inventory. Astrologers did no better than chance or than a nonastrologer control subject at matching the birth charts to the personal data; this result was independent of astrologers' confidence ratings for their predicted matches. Astrologers also failed to agree with one another's predictions.
Barth, J., Bennet, J.
Found no correlation between occupation, medical problems, height, longevity, and the zodiac signs containing Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter at the time of birth.
Culver, R., Ianna, P.
Pretty much the same study and results as the previous reference. Additionally, no correlation was found between occupation, medical problems, etc. and angular separation (along the ecliptic) of planet pairs at time of birth.
Gauquelin, M.
Found no correlation between occupation and the zodiac signs containing Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and the Moon at the time of birth.
Shawn Carlson
116 adults filled out California Personality Index surveys and provided natal data. One set of natal data and the results of three personality surveys (one of which was for the same person as the natal data) were given to an astrologer who was to interpret the natal data and determine which of the three CPI results belonged to the same subject as the natal data. The San Francisco chapter of the National Council for Geocosmic Research recommended the 28 astrologers who took part. They approved the procedure in advance and predicted that they would select the correct CPI profiles in more that 50 per cent of the trials. Out of 116 trials, the astrologers chose the correct CPI 34 per cent of the time. This agrees with the random chance prediction of 1 of 3 trails producing a correct choice. Horoscopes were prepared by professional astronomers for 83 subjects. Each subject was given three charts, one of which belonged to the subject. In 28 of 83 trials the subject chose the correct chart. This is the success rate expected for random chance.
Eysenck, H.,
Jackson, M., Fiebert, M. S.
Saklofske, D., Kelly, I., McKerracher, D.
These three studies found no correlation between astrological factors (sun and planetary) and personality, including the introversion/extroversion index of the Eysenck Personality Inventory.
Culver, R., Ianna, P.
A double blind test of astrologer John McCall was organized at the University of Virginia by Charles Tolvert and Philip Ianna. McCall claimed an 80 percent success rate in choosing the correct natal horoscope for a subject from three false ones. Twenty-eight subjects were chosen according to McCalls requirements (naturally born caucasians). McCall had 7 successes out of 28 trials, exactly the number predicted by chance.
Silverman, Bernie I.,
Kop, P., Heuts, B.
The above 2 studies found no correlation between marriage/divorce rate and sun sign combinations in the state of Michigan and the city of Amsterdam, respectively.
Culver, R.
Van Deusen, E.
Culver, R., Ianna, P.
The above three references examined the correlation between sun sign and over 60 occupations. The results of all three were negative -- no correlation was found between occupation and sun sign. |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Alice Date: 08 Sep 00 - 01:57 PM From Resources to promote Critical Thinking: click here "...when one has a system based on randomness and arbitrary convention, a shuffle, mix-up or derangement of the system is unimportant, because the whole system is just a random word generator, and it continues to generate random words as you mix it further. The puzzle is how any conscious human being could remain unaware of the arbitrariness of the procedure, once he understands it.
Returning to the question of the popularity of astrology, psychologists have no trouble accounting for it. It comes from the uniquely personal aspect of astrology. Every day you pick up the paper, turn to the astrology column, and read about yourself! Not Ronald Reagan, not Madonna, not Elizabeth Taylor … but you, you, you. It's all about you. It's all to do with you. ...."
".....There are more than 10,000 practicing astrologers in the U.S., and Americans spend more than $200 million annually consulting astrologers. In short, millions of Americans, from Ronald Reagan to minimum wage earners, will doubtless continue to regulate some part of their daily schedule in accord with the arbitrary and potentially harmful "advice" generated by the mindless random-advice generator provided by astrology. Ironically, they will therefore continue to pay unknowing lip service to the tenets of an otherwise forgotten religion of ancient Babylon."
I'll state this again, I have seen this issue from both sides of the argument. There is no way, now that I know the facts about the fallacy of astrology, that I would sit back and not provide truthful information when I see people being recruited into such a belief. Harm does not come just from fanatical fringe practitioners. Time, money, and talent is diverted from people's lives into a practice that has no basis in truth. Just think of how better the world would be if all this time, money, talent, and energy were put into practicing something that is truthful and constructive - volunteering in community assistance; creating something in art, music, literature; seeing ourselves, friends, family, associates as UNIQUE and unfathomably individual persons, not subject to the categorizing of a system of symbols. Alice
|
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: katlaughing Date: 08 Sep 00 - 02:20 PM No one is "recruiting" on here. Alice, you say, "Time, money, and talent is diverted from people's lives into a practice that has no basis in truth." This is a huge assumption on your part, esp. regarding those of us who have participated in this thread and tried to make it clear that we consider such things to be only tools. It is also important to remember that what may be the "truth" for you culd be different from that of others. You also say, "Just think of how better the world would be if all this time, money, talent, and energy were put into practicing something that is truthful and constructive - volunteering in community assistance; creating something in art, music, literature; seeing ourselves, friends, family, associates as UNIQUE and unfathomably individual persons, not subject to the categorizing of a system of symbols." From what I've read and seen in my 2.5 years here on the Mudcat, that is exactly what the majority of us do: volunteer, create, appreciate each other's diversity and UNIQUE talents and I don't think I've ever seen a one of us base any of that on asking what the other's "sign" was. Bearheart is a new member. She stated quite clearly that she wanted to do this for fun and that people who were interested could PM her. She has certainly had cause to feel a little unwelcome and to wonder at how close-minded some Mudcatters can be, as well as disrespectful of others' spiritual beliefs. Not all Americans of African descent are into rap, live in a ghetto, and carry guns; not all people of religion think homosexuals should burn in hell; not all metaphysicians are like those you found in the new age movement; not all folks who use astrology for a tool, go overboard and let it rule their lives. The majority do not. It is unfair and judgemental to say that an entire body of people are a certain way because of the experience you had with so-called new age people. As I said on the other thread, I would ask, again, why is it necessary for the sceptics among us to denigrate, make assumptions, and generally treat with disdain, the spiritual beliefs/practices of some of the rest of us? I thought Mudcatters had more respect for one another's diversity than that. kat
|
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: SINSULL Date: 08 Sep 00 - 03:21 PM Back to "Crossing Over". I have watched the show carefully since the first installment trying to make sense of his ability to receive messages from the dead. My take on it is that he is very good at reading people, may have some "ESP" skills, and is a total fraud although he may not know it. First, observe the pressure he puts on his subjects claiming that if they don't respond quickly another spirit will push in and the opportunity will be gone. Second, How many people do you know who couldn't respond positively to "Is there a 'K' in your life somewhere?" His subject laughs and says "Yes" or tears up and says "Yes" and he's off and running. Third, on many occasions, he does a series of readings about"K" only to switch to another person and say "Oops, this is your 'K'" Well what about all the information he just gave to subject #1? Last, he NEVER reads a single person. there is always someone there to "help" who is of course hoping to make a contact himself. If this were "real" the readings could be done "one on one" with NO feedback from the subject until the "contact" ended. He does make some interesting "hits" re: colors, special clothing, missing limbs, etc. but so do most Tarot Card readers and crystal ball starers. There is a certain mount of "reading" involved. But is Aunt Hannah crossing over to remind me of her broken finger nail? I don't think so. |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Naemanson Date: 08 Sep 00 - 04:19 PM Kat wrote, "...why is it necessary for the sceptics among us to denigrate, make assumptions, and generally treat with disdain, the spiritual beliefs/practices of some of the rest of us?" That is a pretty sweeping generalization. It seems to "denigrate, make assumptions, and generally treat with disdain" our scepticism. Remember we want to believe these claims but require proof before we can make that leap. When proof is presented we will be able to ask Bearheart to cast a horoscope and will be happy with the results. Until then Astrology and the other "new age" beliefs remain superstitions to us. Alice had a bad experience. It left her with a hard edge where it comes to these new age things. She, like the rest of us here, represents a minority of one, i.e., herself. She may not meet the definition of sceptic. I too used to have a hard edge but that was only intolerance learned from my parents. I lost some of that when I lost my girlfriend. Part of the reason I lost her was my disrespect for her own new age beliefs. I hope I learned a lesson there. |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: katlaughing Date: 08 Sep 00 - 04:33 PM No more sweeping in generalisations than those made against us. Also, this thread was not started as a discussion on sceptics; there has been a general tone of derision for the subject it was started about. Astrology and a lot of other things which are called "new age" have been around, used, and/or known about for thousands of years, esp. in Asian countries. It is unfortunate that the renewed interest in them has brought about the term, "new age" since most of the concepts are very old. I would ask you this: would you all keep this up if we were talking about a specific religion, i.e. Christianity? Knowing that there were several of us on here who were believers/practitioners? Let's respect each other's diversity and let it go. Obviously we are not going to agree about any of it. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Bearheart Date: 13 Sep 00 - 03:19 AM I can't speak to all of the research cited in this material, but I will comment on some of it from the perspective of 30+ years of study of the subject. Barth, J., Bennet, J. Leonardo 7, 235 1974 Found no correlation between occupation, medical problems, height, longevity, and the zodiac signs containing Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter at the time of birth. An astrologer would not look at these planetary placements as indicative of anything, unless they were specifically related to the area of the chart which would describe occupation, ect. For instance, one looks at the 1st and 6th house sectors and the placements of the planets that rule them, and also the sign and house placements of the Sun (which describes the overall vitality and life forceof the individual) and the Moon (which gives information on inherited/genetic health problems)-- in my own case Neptune would be the primary significator of health/medical problems, but in my brother's case Saturn and the Moon would be the primary significators of health/medical problems. This study doesn't even mention any of those planets! This study was clearly designed by someone who doesn't have a clue how real astrology functions. Gauquelin, M. L'Influence des Astres, Etude Critique et Experimentale Dauphin Press 1955 I don't know which of Gauquelin's studies this was. But in fact he and his wife, who originally set out to disprove astrology, did design several studies which in fact did show that (using charts of people who were highly successful in their fields) certain planets traditionally associated with certain occupations do in fact occupy sectors of the chart associated with occupation. In fact their studies were so statistically relevant that the studies are frequently quoted by astrologers and used by astrologers for their own research. One of the books in my own library that is devoted to vocational analysis makes extensive use of the G-sectors, as they are called (after Gauquelin). The book is called Planets In Work, by Jamie Binder, and she lists three volumes of work by the Gaulquelins. The one I have most fequently seen referenced is a 1978 distillation of their research called Cosmic Influences on Human Behaviour.
Silverman, Bernie I., Contemporary Astronomy by J. Pasachoff, cf p437 W. B. Saunders 1977 Kop, P., Heuts, B. Journal of Interdisciplenary Cycle Research 5, 19 1974 The above 2 studies found no correlation between marriage/divorce rate and sun sign combinations in the state of Michigan and the city of Amsterdam, respectively. Again, I don't know why they would think that there would be any correlation between these two things. I certainly wouldn't look for such indications in the Sun signs. The area traditionally looked at for marriage and/or divorce is the 7th house, its sign and whatever planets are located therein, and its planetary ruler. Only people with Aquarius risng (which puts Leo on the 7th cusp,so that the Sun would be the planetary ruler) or with the sun in the 7th, would have any correlation at all between Sun sign and marriage/divirce rate. Though frankly why anyone would be interested in this is beyond me. Wouldn't it be more meaningful to look at the 7th house in light of the kind of partner that would be most fulfilling for the individual in question? (ie, Jupiter in the 7th or ruling it--- if other factors concur-- correlates with a person who needs a fulfilling spiritual partnership, or a partner who encourages their urge for personal growth. Of course no astrologer worth his/her salt would look at just one factor, but would look at the chart holistically. A Pisces with Moon in Sagittarius with Jupiter in the 7th would especially need a spiritual partner to be fulfilled-- though these signs do TEND to need several attempts before they get it right!-- Whereas a Gemini with Moon in Leo and a 7th house Jupiter might be more interested in support for personal growth, especially through creative endeavors, particularly if Libra was rising. and the sign Jupiter is in, as well as the aspects it makes, will also color the partner picture. It's really rather silly for people who have no or very little knowledge of astrology to design these studies, because they don't know what they are looking at or for. It's about as useful statistically speaking as for most of us Mudcatters to do DNA research. We don't have the knowledge of the subject, or the tools. And most of these people won't take the time to find out what they need to know to design such a study. Culver, R. Sun Sign Sunset Pachert 1979 Van Deusen, E. Astrogenetics Doubleday 1976 Culver, R., Ianna, P. Astronomy Quarterly, 1, 147 1977 The above three references examined the correlation between sun sign and over 60 occupations. The results of all three were negative -- no correlation was found between occupation and sun sign. Of course not. Occupation is seldom shown by the sun sign. It's shown by other factors entirely. The sign, planetary placements and condition of the 10th house (and late 9th house, according to Gauquelin) and Ascendant/1st house (and late 12th house--G. again) are PRIMARY, with SOME input from Sun and Moon, including, interestingly enough, the Moon phase at the time of birth (there are 8 phases not 4 by the way, in western astrology). Of course if the Sun is configured with the 10th/1st house it will be important. But it only spends 2 hours +/- per day in each of these sectors of the sky. So how many people are likely to have it as a significator of occupation? Again I have to say-- how good can a study be if the people designing it know nothing about the subject? They haven't a clue what to look for. You can't count apples if all you have is oranges. You have to start by measuring the appropriate statistics. Let's hope all those folks doing medical research aren't being this sloppy. |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Wolfgang Date: 13 Sep 00 - 05:56 AM Raisonner avec un astrologue, c'est boxer avec un oreiller à plumes: on l'enforce en un point, il se regonfle ailleurs (Michel Gauquelin, 1955) (my translation: To reason with an astrologer is like boxing with a feather bed: you make an impression at one point and it/he inflates at another) I'm glad that the discussion turns from belief to empirical research for that's where it belongs. There are numerous studies about astrology. By far most of them find no effect at all, some find an effect which may or may not be consistent with astrological predictions. If I compare studies that come out in support of astrology with those that don't I cannot find a difference in the general approach to method of study. Mostly, specific astrological predictions are singled out and looked for in a large sample. Since many astrological predictions are specific about the direction of the effect but vague about effect size ("there is a tendency...", "may be counteracted by...") the reasoning of all those studies is that even if there is but a "tendency" it has to show in a large unbiased sample because all potential counteracting or supporting tendencies should cancel out. The astrologers cite all the supporting findings and deal with the contradictory evidence in the way Bearheart has demonstrated above: The researchers should have looked at...instead and don't know a thing about astrology. Since there are so many conflicting predictions and so many conflicting astrological systems, this reasoning will never run out of arguments. What Gauquelin has thought about that I have cited above. Two examples and I start with Gauquelin. The 1955 book referenced by Alice has the bulk of his data about the so called Mars effect, and his findings about Jupiter and Saturn. Gauqulin explicitly states that his findings contradict traditional astrology and he does so in no kind terms (see above or: "[astrological arguments are full of] l'ignorance, l'incohérance, la déformation des faits"; no need to translate that, I guess). He has done many more experiments with only negative results and I am at a loss of understanding why only a tiny fraction of the work of the Gauquelins which (a) does not fit well within the astrological theory, (b) is seen by Gauquelin himself as a refutation of traditional astrology, and (c) is known for potentially serious artifacts of data selection, is cited by astrologers. Peter Niehenke was once (and perhaps still is) chairman of one of the German astrological societies. He has made his doctoral dissertation about astrology and I haven't checked the details but I trust a professional astrologer to get the astrological predictions correct. In his two million items of data he looked for several thousand correlations and found nothing at all beyond chance (if you look for several thousand correlations a sizable amount of them must be correct by chance alone) and stated that clearly. He was of course severely criticised in his own astrological journal for singling out effects ('you should have also taken ... into account') and defended his research bravely against his fellow astrologers. When he found that his results did not support his belief he wrote: "I experience every day that the interpretation of the horoscope allows deep insight into the human nature"; he then spoke about "two conflicting realities" and said that astrology is in the danger of becoming a kind of religion, a faith and went on: "But why not? One surely need not worry about astrology and its survival even with more negative results upcoming. A world in which astrology is true is once and for all a more beautiful world than one in which astrology does not exist...The want for astrology to be true, therefore, is much stronger than all rational counterproofs." That's a demonstration how to explain away results one doesn't like. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: hesperis Date: 13 Sep 00 - 07:56 AM And Bearheart is saying that she wants to do a study of the correlation between certain placements and music. She is basically trying to find out if what she was taught agrees with the facts. So now everyone is arguing for or against astrology. Serious astrologers do not look at only the sun sign as indicative of everything and anything, yet that is what the people with no knowledge of the system use to base their opinions of astrology on. Also, there are misguided people in any occupation, please do not blame the people who are trying to do their job well for the actions of people who are corrupt. There is a big difference between the silly little sun-sign horoscopes in the newspaper and what Bearheart is trying to do here. If you want to discuss how she is going about the study, that is a valid point of discussion. If you just want to say, before she has even done her study, that astrology has no validity, then you are a little bit out of line. (IMHO) I would be interested in what parameters Bearheart is thinking of using in her study. hesperis |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: kendall Date: 13 Sep 00 - 08:42 AM Just for the record Kat, I dont "Laugh" at anyones beliefs. And, to a degree, I agree with you. If we are self aware, we really can not hide behind Karma or Fate. However, there are those who never get beyond that point of blamming fate or luck or karma. |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: katlaughing Date: 13 Sep 00 - 10:34 AM Well, Kendall, I haven't run into anyone here who hides behind such things. Hesperis, well said. Everyone seems to have totally ignored what I said above about Bearheart being a new member and respecting one another's diversity. If I were her, I am not sure I would come back to be bullied some more. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: GUEST Date: 13 Sep 00 - 11:24 AM Bearheart said in her initial post that she would share her results with the forum and then gave an example that 80% of guitarists had Neptune in the 10th house (of career). That's a pretty high percentage and an interesting statistic, but what's more intriguing than that is why didn't the other 20% have Neptune in the 10th house of career? It's seldom you see any explanations or theories regarding the subjects that didn't fit the statistic. Probably for the same reason you never hear what the fifth doctor in the "four out of five doctors recommend Slayer aspirin" studies said: "For God's sakes, whatever you do, don't take Slayer aspirin. That stuff'll kill you!" |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Bearheart Date: 13 Sep 00 - 01:08 PM Before I get totally sidetracked. Thanks hesperis for your words-- I feel like someone out there is actually READING what I've been writing! To me the whole point of this excercise is to see whether there really are those kinds of correlates. And thanks, sian, for your data. For those of you who can, PMing data is helpful... Actually I didn't say that 80% of guitarists have that placement. (I was giving that as an example, sorry if that wasn't clear.) It maybe that none of them will have that placement-- though I will be surprised if that is the case. (Luckily I don't have a problem with surprises.) But the beauty of astrology is that there are several factors to look at. I would also expect guitarists to have Neptune rising, or as the ruler of the 10th house (meaning that Pisces is in that house; Neptune rules Pisces) even if it were in the 5th house of creativity; of course they might be really good guitarists but only do it in the privacy of their bedroom-- in which case the 10th house--which rules career and being in the public eye-- wouldn't be involved at all. The Gauguelins' research is well documented. And it is true that their findings challenge SOME very old astrological beliefs. But the astology of the year 2000 is not the astrology of 100 years ago, or even of 25 years ago. Most astrologers want the facts, believe it or not, and are willing to explore and revamp astrology as new things are learned. However, if you look carefully at the work the Gs have done since 1955 (the books I am citing were published in 1978, '80,and '82) it really doesn't deny astrology-- the traditional meanings for Saturn and Mars, for instance, as significators of vocation BY HOUSE PLACEMENT (there are other factors that are also utilized) are borne out, but with a twist-- the sector of influence precedes the cusp of the tenth house by about 15 degrees while still incorporating the early part of the tenth house--the cusp, which is the most important point used in delineation. One interesting distinction they have been able to make is that while Mercury is very important in the charts of technical writers, the Moon is really the significator for creative writers-- which if you think about it makes a lot of sense, since the Moon is about imagination, whereas Mercury is about facts and the five senses.
|
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Escamillo Date: 13 Sep 00 - 02:33 PM I am not taking part in this thread because it was started by a Mudcatter for a purpose, and would feel as interferring between the originator and her many potential clients. Instead I would invite all to start another thread, on the subject of the validity of astrology, and then wait for Bearheart and other astrologers to discuss their point in a neutral place. Isn't it better ? I won't start it, I feel too new to start threads of hot discussions! :) Un abrazo - Andrés |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Bearheart Date: 14 Sep 00 - 01:40 AM Thank you Andres. I am personally at the point in this discussion where I have no more desire to dialog about the validity of astrology. I want to focus on the intent of this thread-- to collect data for the study. I have more important things to do-- like singing and playing music, and collating data... Please feel free to PM or email me with data as per earlier threads. Thanks to the various folks--you know who you are-- who have recently sent me data to work with. I think to fill things out I will add data for other musicians I know who are not mudcatters. most of them are into Celtic music though, and I'd like to include more of other styles in the study, for contrast... anyone out there willing to participate?
|
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Escamillo Date: 14 Sep 00 - 03:23 AM I won't send data because I'm a (friendly) enemy of astrology, but I think that a thread dedicated to the discussion of its validity would challenge detractors and sustainers for an open discussion with no one feeling offended, no matter how strong the discrepancies could be. That's an idea, could it be good ? |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: katlaughing Date: 14 Sep 00 - 09:45 AM Dear Andres, Thank you for trying to understand. I do not consider you to be close-minded, just a little hard-headed!**BG** Anyway, at this point I think those of us who have defended astrology as a tool are feeling a bit brow-beaten and I know I, for one, and a couple of others, would have no interest in continuing a debate of that kind for now. As this thread is getting too long, I do think, after talking to a couple of others, that a new astrology-friendly thread would be nice, so I will probably start one. I would just ask those of you who are its detractors to respect us enough to not start in on us in that thread. If you want a thread to do that, then I guess a "sceptics" thread would be in order, eh? Thanks, kat |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Escamillo Date: 14 Sep 00 - 01:36 PM Hey! I was suggesting a neutral place ! You are too fast for me, Katalina ... Un abrazo - Andrés |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Bearheart Date: 14 Sep 00 - 02:54 PM Sorry, Andres-- wasn't assuming you'd be interested in giving stats-- it was very late when I last wrote and I was going on about 4 hours of sleep in the last 36, so my punctuation wasn't on-- meant to direct that invitation to folks in general, not to you. Do appreciate your thoughts and Kat's on redirecting the dialog to two separate threads. I'm going to go take a nap... |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: katlaughing Date: 14 Sep 00 - 03:05 PM Dear Andres, Ah, darlin'...I had been thinking about starting one for a couple of days, now, just hadn't said so; so really not all that quick after all, see?*bg* I knew you meant a neutral thread, but what I was saying was, I think those of us who are pro-astrology, probably wouln't want to participate as we already have had to do so much debating in this thread; feels like we need a break to just enjoy a discussion among those who believe in it. Big Hugs to you, too, mi amigo, luvyaKatalina |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: guinnesschik Date: 14 Sep 00 - 03:27 PM I've been keeping a pretty keen eye on this thread, and I'm wondering if Bearheart has had enough folks contributing to her study to make serious headway. Open-minded skeptic, who happens to be a Saggitarius and lives in a haunted house, ;-)guinnesschik |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: GUEST,John D. Date: 14 Sep 00 - 11:34 PM Farrrrrrrrr out! |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Bearheart Date: 15 Sep 00 - 12:42 AM Have padded the file slightly with a few musician friends and acquaintances who aren't mudcatters--- and am up to 52 charts. Would definitely like more. Plan to begin serious work on this around the end of October so would like to have double or triple that by then. Will continue to take more charts if they come in but probably not past Christmas as I want to have the bulk of work done by the end of January, and even if I start soon that will take some doing. So if you have friends that are willing to participate please have them contact me. |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: guinnesschik Date: 15 Sep 00 - 08:21 PM Good luck in your endeavor, Bearheart! I'd like to encourage even "nonbelievers" to participate, even if just for fun. We all learn so much by keeping an open mind and experiencing new things. ~Blessings!~ |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Bearheart Date: 16 Sep 00 - 05:24 PM Thanks for your encouragement, g-chik. I wonder if those skeptics have some astrological thingy in common? |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: The Lighthouse Date: 16 Sep 00 - 06:59 PM Us skeptics were born under the sign of "Reality". |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: guinnesschik Date: 17 Sep 00 - 11:04 AM I keep repeating, I'm a skeptic, too. BUT: I'm an open minded skeptic. There are too many things in this world the are "beyond oor ken," as my great-granny used to say. Ligten up, folks; life's way too short to take things so seriously. Besides, I'm just too Saggitarian to totally disbelieve. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: katlaughing Date: 08 Feb 01 - 03:53 PM Bearheart, I hope you are still out there and will come back with some interesting stats on we who chose to participate. I know you've been really busy with life, so it's okay if you're not ready. I found this quote today and thought of this thread. It is a paraphrased from a quote by Joan Wester Anderson: To those who are willing to believe, no explanation of these events is necessary...and to those who are not willing to believe, no explanation is possible. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 08 Feb 01 - 04:03 PM I don't want to believe in astrology because the only person (in my entire life!) I had an ugly confrontation with, had the same birthday as mine! |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Katcina Date: 09 Feb 01 - 12:17 PM Such a very curious thread I happened upon. I've found it most interesting and did go to the trouble of visiting Bearheart's site. Heightened my curious mind on matters that I already practice and indulge in. |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Pondering It All Date: 10 Feb 01 - 02:17 PM I have been to their web site and read all that is there to offer but I am still left with the thought or curiosity as it may be that they do not really exist. I have submitted my information and had no response what so ever and also can find no posting of their results of the so called study that was being conducted. This leaves many questions in my mind. |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: katlaughing Date: 10 Feb 01 - 04:03 PM One of them is finishing up school and the other splits her time between visiting at school and, many hours away, running the home and business. I know she just got done with some on-site intensive classes with a good number of students. She told me she'd be *swamped* until after the middle of February. Also, I think she was hoping to receive input from more Mudcatters in order to have more data to analyse. I am sure she will be back as soon as she is able. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: GUEST Date: 27 Aug 02 - 01:16 PM Was any of the information Bearheart was to have compiled ever given in the Forum? |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Jim Krause Date: 28 Aug 02 - 11:16 AM I don't think so. I bit and perhaps should not have given so much personal information out. I rather wonder if it wasn't some sort of an attempt to use the Mudcat for nonmusical advertising purposes.
|
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Bearheart Date: 28 Aug 02 - 11:17 AM Well, I guess it was timely that I should check the Mudcat today-- been out of town much of the summer and not much free time when I'm here. A while back, I emailed kat about resusitating this thread, but discovered she was inthe midst of moving and other trials and was not really available for comment. Here is an update: Due to urgency of other projects I put this project on hold in late winter/spring 2001. Did some work on it in the summer but lost my computer and my astrology program in June. Did not get computerized again till August due to cash flow problems. did not get astrology program in place till till early September. Like most people was struggling with the aftermath of 9/11 for the next few months. Also I had lost all my data, and had to comb through this thread to retrieve all the data I had accumulated (I have still not found the file with the charts that I printed off). I re-did all the charts and printed matter this spring/early summer and have been colating info. Found that I could use more participants since many of the folks that sent me info do not have verifiable accurate birth times. That makes their data less useful for the project. Hope this brings things up to date for folks. I have been hesitant to bring this all up again since it stirred up so much controversy, but I would like to progress on this project and currently I have fewer than 50 charts (even using other data sources than mudcat) that can actually be used for the study. I don't feel this is a satisfactory sample. So maybe interested people will contact me or know others not on this forum who ould participate? Thanks! Bekki |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: dorareever Date: 28 Aug 02 - 11:56 AM I alredy know my chart birthchart,but maybe I will send you my data for helping you in you research.I love astrology,I don't like the way it's usually misunderstood. |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: dorareever Date: 28 Aug 02 - 12:29 PM Bekki,I can't PM you,don't know why...maybe I do something wrong,never PM anyone before...can you PM me and maybe I'll reply? I replied before,so I can do it ;) I'm *very* interested in this project. Chiara |
|
Subject: RE: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: GUEST,Marie Date: 28 Aug 02 - 03:16 PM To Katlaughing (referring to your post on the 19/08/00) and others... Did you know?!... According to that song "This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius" well, it seems we are already into it !!! Since the 20th January 1998 !... According to my book of Ephemerides: where we can see that this alignement of Jupiter and Mars talked about in the song occurs precisely in the sign of Aquarius !!! (Well, that was just for the anecdote !) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Bearheart Date: 18 Sep 02 - 01:33 PM Dorareever, check your PMs, I have responded. Been out of town, etc for much of the last few weeks, sorry for the delay. Bekki |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Pennny Date: 19 Sep 02 - 01:38 PM Start anew_this is way long |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Sibelius Date: 19 Sep 02 - 05:22 PM You're still collecting stats then, Bearheart? Date 17th Jan 65 Time 07.20GMT Lat 53:26N Long 2:08W I had this all done once, and I think it gives me Mercury, Venus and Asc in close conjunction in Capricorn, with Sun in Cap opposing Moon in Cancer. Dunno about the houses. Music-wise: started playing guitar at 17, moderate singer at best, have dabbled in lots of other instruments but guitar still the main one. Occasional songwriter. Have played semi-professionally but not for a few years. Trad English and Irish (I like turning tunes into guitar solos - sounds self-indulgent, but I promise you I wait my turn in sessions!) US country and country rock. That the sort of thing you want? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 19 Sep 02 - 05:54 PM i reckon astrology is the biggest load of shit i have ever heard off.john |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Astrological Stats on Mudcatters From: GUEST Date: 19 Sep 02 - 06:00 PM LOL! Well said, John |