A simple review,from a poster in IMDB.
Summary: THIS IS NOT A DOCUMENTARY.
Bowling For Columbine was the highest grossing feature length
documentary ever made when it was released in 2002. Fahrenheit 9/11
made more money in its first weekend than Bowling For Columbine's
gross. Needless to say, the release was a massive media event, and
conservatives, particularly those in radio, are fighting to be the
first to denounce Michael Moore and anything he does or stands for.
One radio talk show host, Lee Hewitt, I think, even went so far as to
call Fahrenheit 9/11 something of a Rorschach test, 'Anybody who liked
anything about this movie clearly is an idiot' type of thing. It's
really sad to see how badly they want everyone to look the other way.
'This movie is propaganda/a pack of lies' (Limbaugh). 'This movie is a
test of your mental capacity' (Hewitt). 'The movie was SHOT badly'
(Michael Medvet). 'Michael Moore is a liar' (everyone). Some even
dubbed it astoundingly unentertaining and boring, an absolutely
impossible assertion regardless of your political standing. You know,
no matter how much you hate Michael Moore, it's hard to argue with
video evidence. And by the way, Mr. Medvet, that 'grainy' look was
there because you were looking at what is called stock footage.
Unproduced, unedited, uncleaned, unpolished. Best not to comment on
the technical aspects of a medium about which you clearly know
virtually nothing.
That being said, I can understand a lot of the criticism that the
movie is receiving. There's a part in the movie, for example (this is
probably the part that receives the most glaring criticism) in which
we see a montage of Iraqi children jump-roping and singing and whatnot
before the war. When I saw that part, the first thing that popped into
my mind was, 'My God, why would Michael Moore arm his critics with
such a sequence?' Of course, the SECOND thought that popped into my
mind (note that there was more than one), was that this is a mixture
of Moore's quite often obnoxious sense of humor and his tendency to
show things that tend to get hidden, usually purposely.
We know that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, that he ran an
oppressive regime, that he killed his own people, etc. What people
don't seem to get is that Moore is not saying that it was all singing
and dancing and sweet happy cheer in Iraq before Bush took us to war
there, but he was showing that those things did in fact exist in Iraq.
If you think that Michael Moore expects his audience to believe that
living under a dictator like Hussein resembled a trip to Disneyland,
see the Rorschach comment above. Disagree with them all you like, but
liberals are not drooling idiots, and Moore knows this. You look at
the news media, on TV and in the newspapers, even from the very mouth
of our own president, and you hear about absolutely NOTHING but
killers and evildoers and murderers and mass graves and weapons of
mass destruction and torture chambers and rape rooms, seemingly from
people who believe that Iraq in its entirety is a torture chamber.
True, Hussein ran a brutal regime, but that was simply what life was
like for Iraqis. They don't understand freedom after so many years of
oppression, and the notion that we could go over there and inject a
democratic government into a country that has lived in oppression for
so many decades and think that everyone is going to live happily ever
after loving America and Americans forever and ever is MUCH more of a
Rorschach test than whether or not you liked even a single thing about
Fahrenheit 9/11.
Is it too much simply to show that there was some level of
normalcy at some levels in Iraq? And as far as being partly a result
of Moore's obnoxious sense of humor, I am referring to the sense of
humor that led him to hypothesize about what was going through Bush's
head in the first minutes after being told of the attacks, or that led
Moore to sneak up on Charlton Heston and unexpectedly ask for an
apology for the families of the Columbine victims for holding an NRA
meeting in Columbine shortly after the Columbine shootings. You could
argue with the idea that, based on the footage of Bush in that
classroom after being told about the attacks, he was clearly clueless
about what to do. There is even footage of him with his head down in
that children's book and his eyes are darting around the room as
though he's afraid someone's looking at him. His vacuous expression is
indeed unsettling.
But here is the thing that has to be kept in mind when analyzing
this movie from any political standpoint, THIS IS NOT A DOCUMENTARY.
Michael Moore himself has explained that Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a
documentary, but more of an editorial piece in which he presents HIS
OPINION of a variety of facts. Context is dangerously absent at many
points in the movie, but the important thing to realize is that it is
entirely based on FACTS. Michael Moore has considered offering a
$10,000 reward (see the July 12, 2004 issue of TIME magazine) to
anyone who can successfully disprove a single FACT (NOT opinion) in
his movie. Given that, Mr. Limbaugh, the assertion that the movie is
'a pack of lies' is either propaganda in itself or pure, unfiltered
idiocy.
In Moore's defense, he shows a surprising and much appreciated
amount of restraint, playing only the audio over a black screen of the
September 11th attacks, sparing us from seeing the catastrophic images
that he knows we don't need to see yet again. He also largely
disappears from the movie himself, taking a sharp turn from his heavy
presence in his previous works, such as Roger & Me, the television
show 'The Awful Truth,' and Bowling For Columbine, probably because he
knows he is taking on a much more touchy issue and had best let the
facts speak for themselves. Notice, for example, that as soon as he
appears in the movie, he can't resist walking up to various government
officials and asking them to enlist their own children in the war in
Iraq.
Michael Moore is so determined in his opposition to Bush that he
slips up at times, but the larger picture presented by his movie is
impossible to ignore. We see a disturbing sequence which describes how
much more money the Bushes receive from powerful and wealthy Saudis
than from American taxpayers, and thus where their loyalties may lie,
although this is at odds with the Saudis opposition to the war in
Iraq. Even so, the embarrassing extent of Bush's verbal ineptitude is
a difficult thing to ignore, especially when we compare his delivery
of immensely intelligent speeches, clearly written by his teams of
speechwriters, and the disquieting spectacle of Bush Unplugged which,
as they say, is quite a thing to behold.
If you hated the movie, fine. There's no reason that people should
not be allowed to disagree with Moore's film or his political views,
or even to simply not enjoy it (although opposite political views are
pretty much required for lack of at least some level of enjoyment).
But for crying out loud, don't make such outlandish and moronic claims
as that the movie doesn't inspire debate, is nothing but lies, or is
pure cinematic trash. I've heard all of these from people speaking
into a broadcasting microphone, and it's really disheartening to see
how closed-minded such people are. If you hated the movie, don't watch
it again, if you hate Michael Moore, don't watch it at all and just go
out and vote for Bush. That's how you get your revenge against Michael
Moore, vote for Bush because Moore wants nothing more than to get him
out of office. If, on the other hand, you are able to think for
yourself, watch the movie and take from it what you will. Believe what
you want, don't believe what you don't want, but don't blindly pretend
that Fahrenheit 9/11 is completely negligible just because of who made
it or because it presents a decidedly left-wing point of view. No
matter how you feel about it, there are some serious problems with the
American government pointed out in this movie to which everyone should
pay attentio
Science,computers,politics,theology pseudo-sciences , and personal feelings! All here!
Saturday, July 10, 2004
Efficacy of astrology
This is a article that I came across , a must read for those who
believe in astrology.
Source: Correlation, Northern Winter 1996/97, 15(2), p. 14-20.
The Astrotest
A tough match for astrologers
by Rob Nanninga
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
Astrology text books contain many testable statements. To take an
example: it is said that people with the Sun in an Air-sign (Gemini,
Libra and Aquarius) are more thinking types than those with the Sun in
a Water-sign (Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces). Thus we might expect that
among skeptics Air signs are more numerous than Water signs. To my
knowledge this hypothesis has not yet been tested. Nevertheless, it
seems likely that it can be disproved because many similar tests have
failed to show any relationship between given Sun signs and certain
personality traits or vocation (e.g. Bastedo, R.W. 1978; Culver &
Ianna, 1988; Gauquelin, 1982, 1988; Hentschel, 1985; McGervey, 1977;
Startup, M. 1984; Tyson, 1980, 1984; Van Rooij, 1993).
Astrologers strongly object to these kind of tests. They emphasize
that one should always look at the whole chart. The Sun sign is only
one factor that is influenced by numerous other astrological factors.
The system as a whole does not equal the sum of it's parts, because
these parts are often in conflict with one another. The influence of
the Sun-sign can easily be cancelled out by the position of the Moon
or anything else. Therefore, one should never isolate one particular
factor, but try to interpret the whole chart.
Apparently, this implies that a group of a thousand Scorpions do not
have more in common then a random group with mixed Sun signs. If this
is true, we may wonder why astrological textbooks continue to tell us
that Scorpions are secretive, passionate, resentful and vindictive. We
may also wonder how astrologers have ever found out the meaning of the
different Sun signs.
Fortunately, we don't have to argue about this issue because there are
tests in which astrologers can use the whole chart. I am referring to
the so-called matching test. One of the best examples was conducted by
the Australian researcher Dr. Geoffrey Dean (1987). Using the Eysenck
Personality Inventory, Dean selected 60 people with a very high
introversion score and 60 people with a very high extraversion score.
Next, he supplied 45 astrologers with the birth charts of these 120
subjects. By analysing the charts the astrologers tried to identify
the extroverts from the introverts. The results were very
disappointing. It was as if the astrologers had tossed coins to
determine their choices. Their average success rate was only 50.2
percent.
As might be expected, astrologers do not like this type of test
either. They argue that they need more information on the subjects so
as to successfully accomplish their matching task. An extreme
extraversion score on the EPI is apparently not enough. Many
astrologers doubt the value of personality tests. How can we overcome
this hurdle? The best way to go about this is to ask astrologers what
kind of information they require. This strategy was used by John
McGrew and Richard McFall (1990), two psychologists of Indiana
University. The 'Astrotest' that I am about to discuss is similar to
their approach.
Devising the Astrotest
In May 1994 the Algemeen Dagblad (General Daily), a Dutch national
newspaper, published an article by Martin Boot, a former astrologer
who now works as a psychotherapist. Boot argued that astrologers
cannot predict. In response, the astrologer Rene Jelsma wrote a
rebuttal that was published under the heading "Astrologer can really
predict".
I decided to offer an experimental solution to this difference of
opinion by inviting astrologers to take part in the Astrotest of the
Skepsis Foundation. My proposal was as follows: All participants will
receive the birth data (date, time and place) of seven anonymous test
subjects. They will also receive seven questionnaires filled out by
these subjects. The questions will be devised by the participants.
They have to match each birth chart with the corresponding
questionnaire. To encourage participation, I offered 5000 guilders
(2500 dollars) to those who were able to match all seven charts.
The response was beyond expectation. More than 70 people showed
willingness to participate. I sent them a brief questionnaire to
determine how much experience they had in astrology. I also asked them
to supply me with a number of questions that I could put to my test
subjects. Later on, more astrologers volunteered. Some of them
replaced those who had not returned my questionnaire. It was decided,
however, that the maximum number of astrologers should be 50, because
we wanted to limit our risk of loosing the 5000 guilders. Even without
any astrological knowledge, each participant would have a chance of 1
in 5040 to obtain the money.
It was not easy to find suitable test subjects. Initially, I collected
people who had all been born in 1948. The president of the NGPA (Dutch
Society of Practising Astrologers), however, pointed out that in those
days the registered birthtimes were often rounded to the full or half
hour. Therefore, I decided to use subjects that were born around 1958.
After I had obtained their birth certificates, I used a computer
program to calculate their charts. Then I noticed that four of my
subjects had an ascendent that was near the cusp between two signs. If
they were born five minutes later or earlier than the time that was
registered in their birth certificate, they would have had a different
ascendending sign. Because I could not be sure that the birth times
were correct to the minute, I felt obliged to replaced these subjects
with others with a less ambiguous ascendent.
On the average the participants sent me ten questions to be answered
by the test subjects, leaving aside those that did not formulate any
questions. I synthesized the questions into a list of 25 that covered
several aspects of the subjects life: their education, vocation,
hobbies, interests, main goals, personality, relationships, health,
religion, etc. In addition, I asked them for the dates of some
important events in their life, because many participants had shown an
interest in specific dates. Finally, I added 24 multiple choice
questions that I had taken from the Berkeley Personality Profile.
Eight experienced astrologers were asked for their opinion about the
questionnaire. They had no major objections against it. At the
suggestion of one of them I added three multiple choice questions
covering the family background of the subjects. Finally, the
questionnaires and the list of birth data were sent to a few skeptics
who tried to find the matching pairs. Although one of them scored 3
hits, there was no reason to suspect that any of the pairs could be
identified by using hidden clues.
Expectations vs results
In the beginning of December 1994 all data were sent to the 50
participants of the Astrotest. They had ten weeks to complete the
test. I allowed them to formulate an additional question after
studying the charts, but only one person did.
Eventually, 44 astrologers completed the test. Many of them had much
experience. Half of the participants had read at least fifty books on
astrology. Three quarters had taken a course in astrology and one
quarter was training others. At least half of the participants had
analyzed over a hundred astrological charts and one-third was
frequently paid for it's services. One quarter was member of the Dutch
Society of Practising Astrologers (NGPA).
The astrologers were asked to indicate how many correct matches they
would have expected. There were 36 participants who revealed their
expectations. Half of them predicted that they had matched all
subjects with the correct charts. Only six astrologers expected less
than four hits.
In fact, the most successful astrologer achieved only three correct
matches, whereas half of the participants (22) did not score a single
hit. The average number of hits was 0.75. This is 0.25 below the mean
change expectation (MCE), a deviation that is not significant.
Moreover, there was no evidence that the most experienced astrologers
did any better than beginners.
It is interesting to compare the entries of the participants with each
other. Because they all had received the same information, one would
expect many similar responses. Actually, the lack of agreement was
striking. Each of the seven charts could be paired with seven
questionnaires. Of these 49 possible combinations, none was selected
more than twelve times. It was as if each astrologer had used a random
generator to determine the correct matches. There were only two
astrologers who had independently arrived at the same solution (p =
0.18). Two other entries were also identical, but in this case the
participants had joined forces.
Unconvincing excuses
Afterwards, I sent all participants a short questionnaire to find out
more about the impact of their negative results. Nine of the 22
respondents confessed that they were surprised by the lack of
agreement between the participants. Four admitted that the
possibilities of astrology were more limited then they had thought,
and seven came to the conclusion that astrology only works in actual
practice. Nevertheless, sixteen respondents still believed that
science can prove astrology right.
I asked the astrologers which factors might be responsible for the
disappointing results. Ten respondents found the horoscopes too much
alike. They pointed out that Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto were
nearly always located in the same astrological sign. Uranus, for
instance, was always in Leo. This is not surprising because Uranus
needs seven years to move from one sign to the next. The age
differences between the test subjects were necessarily much smaller,
because the questionnaires contained much information that could be
used to estimate their age. Anyhow, the horoscopes showed numerous
differences that were hard to overlook.
Ten respondents complained that the answers of the subjects were often
similar. For instance, in reply to a multiple choice question about
their job, all subjects claimed to be reliable workers. But again,
there were many more differences than similarities. Moreover, even in
those cases when most subjects expressed a similar opinion, there were
usually dissenters. For example, although four subjects had a vivid
imagination and were fond of aesthetic experiences, there was one
subject who showed not the slightest appreciation for such
experiences. Why didn't his chart stand out from the others?
Nine respondents suspected that the questions were not always answered
truthfully. Perhaps the subjects had a lack of self-knowledge or tried
to present a flattering image of themselves. However, in spite of this
potential bias, most questions concerned verifiable facts. There is no
reason to assume that the subjects lied about their hobbies or the
date of their wedding. Even if all facts were false (including the
birth dates), this would not explain why the astrologers failed to
demonstrate mutual agreement.
The majority of the respondents (13) asserted that the subjects had
not supplied enough information. We cannot rule out the possibility
that the chance results were due to a lack of relevant details. It
should be remarked, however, that nearly all participants had asked
for less information than they actually received. One might just as
well argue that they could not see the wood for the trees.
Is there a way out?
If astrology really works, it should be possible to design a test that
satisfies both scientists and astrologers. Unfortunately, astrologers
never specify what kind of test would be acceptable to them. They
argue that astrological research is very difficult because scientific
methods are too crude, intrusive or mechanical. Apparently, the
alleged astrological effects are so subtle and hard to detect that we
may wonder how astrologers had ever been able to identify them.
In order to explain the lack of objective evidence, some leading Dutch
astrologers (Van Assem, 1993) resorted to the paranormal. They believe
that astrologers can only arrive at the correct interpretation of a
chart by using their higher intuition or by tuning in with the cosmic
order. This intuition can solely be used during authentic
consultations. As soon as a scientist interferes by selecting clients
or posing questions, it disappears. Presumably, scientists are not
part of the cosmic order.
According to Geoffrey Dean and Arthur Mather (1994) scientists and
astrologers are in conflict over whether astrology works because they
tend to look at different things: scientists are concerned with
accuracy whereas astrologers look for client satisfaction. Astrologers
tend to believe that their clients are satisfied because astrology is
accurate. This implies that clients would be less satisfied if the
astrologer had inadvertently used an incorrect birth date. Astrology
is in conflict with science as long as it's claims are testable. An
increasing number of astrologers manage to escape from scientific
scrutiny by confining themselves to statements that can not be
falsified. They assert that a horoscope can only provide information
about our inner life, basic nature, true reality, hidden potential,
deepest aspirations, unconscious fears and motives, forgotten trauma's
and possibilities for future development. Astrology, they say, gives
insight into the meaning and quality of our subjective experiences by
locating them within a cosmic frame of reference. It tells us why we
are the way we are, it can clarify our problems and help us to find
solutions - but it can not predict our behaviour. Astrological
interpretations do not even necessarily fit with the introspection by
the person involved, so nothing can prove them wrong.
The most "progressive" astrologers regard astrology as a counselling
skill. To them the horoscope is only a therapeutic tool and not a
source of reliable information.
References
Bastedo, R.W. (1978). An emperical test of popular astrology.
Skeptical Inquirer, 3(1), 17-38.
Culver, R.B. & Ianna, P.A. (1984). Astrology: true or false? Buffalo:
Prometheus.
Dean, G. (1987). Does astrology need to be true? Scientific Inquirer,
11(3), 257-273.
Dean, G. & Mather, A. (1994). Is the scientific approach relevant to
astrology? Correlation, 13(1), 11-18.
Gauquelin, M. (1982). Zodiac and personality: an emperical study.
Skeptical Inquirer, 6(3), 57-65.
Gauquelin, M. (1988). Written in the stars. Wellingborough: Aquarian
Press, p. 252.
Hentschel, U. & Kiessling, M. (1985). Season of birth and personality:
another instance of noncorrespondence. Journal of Social Psychology,
125(5), 577-585.
McGervey, J.D. (1977). A statistical test of sun-sign astrology. The
Zetetic, 1(2), 49-54.
McGrew, J.H. & McFall, R.M. (1990). A scientific inquiry into the
validity of astrology. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 4(1), 75-83.
Startup, M. (1984). Personality and planetary positions at birth: an
attempted replication with ordinary people. Correlation, 4(2), 4-13.
Tyson, G.A. (1980). Occupation and astrology or season of birth: a
myth? The Journal of Social Psychology, 110, 73-78. Tyson, G.A.
(1984). An emperical test of the astrological theory of personality.
Personality and Individual Differences, 5(2), 247-250.
Van Assem, L. (1993). The astrologer's philosophy of life.
Correlation, 12(1), 52-54.
Van Rooij, J.J.F. (1993). Jungian typology and astrology: an emperical
test. Correlation, 12(1), 28-32.
believe in astrology.
Source: Correlation, Northern Winter 1996/97, 15(2), p. 14-20.
The Astrotest
A tough match for astrologers
by Rob Nanninga
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
Astrology text books contain many testable statements. To take an
example: it is said that people with the Sun in an Air-sign (Gemini,
Libra and Aquarius) are more thinking types than those with the Sun in
a Water-sign (Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces). Thus we might expect that
among skeptics Air signs are more numerous than Water signs. To my
knowledge this hypothesis has not yet been tested. Nevertheless, it
seems likely that it can be disproved because many similar tests have
failed to show any relationship between given Sun signs and certain
personality traits or vocation (e.g. Bastedo, R.W. 1978; Culver &
Ianna, 1988; Gauquelin, 1982, 1988; Hentschel, 1985; McGervey, 1977;
Startup, M. 1984; Tyson, 1980, 1984; Van Rooij, 1993).
Astrologers strongly object to these kind of tests. They emphasize
that one should always look at the whole chart. The Sun sign is only
one factor that is influenced by numerous other astrological factors.
The system as a whole does not equal the sum of it's parts, because
these parts are often in conflict with one another. The influence of
the Sun-sign can easily be cancelled out by the position of the Moon
or anything else. Therefore, one should never isolate one particular
factor, but try to interpret the whole chart.
Apparently, this implies that a group of a thousand Scorpions do not
have more in common then a random group with mixed Sun signs. If this
is true, we may wonder why astrological textbooks continue to tell us
that Scorpions are secretive, passionate, resentful and vindictive. We
may also wonder how astrologers have ever found out the meaning of the
different Sun signs.
Fortunately, we don't have to argue about this issue because there are
tests in which astrologers can use the whole chart. I am referring to
the so-called matching test. One of the best examples was conducted by
the Australian researcher Dr. Geoffrey Dean (1987). Using the Eysenck
Personality Inventory, Dean selected 60 people with a very high
introversion score and 60 people with a very high extraversion score.
Next, he supplied 45 astrologers with the birth charts of these 120
subjects. By analysing the charts the astrologers tried to identify
the extroverts from the introverts. The results were very
disappointing. It was as if the astrologers had tossed coins to
determine their choices. Their average success rate was only 50.2
percent.
As might be expected, astrologers do not like this type of test
either. They argue that they need more information on the subjects so
as to successfully accomplish their matching task. An extreme
extraversion score on the EPI is apparently not enough. Many
astrologers doubt the value of personality tests. How can we overcome
this hurdle? The best way to go about this is to ask astrologers what
kind of information they require. This strategy was used by John
McGrew and Richard McFall (1990), two psychologists of Indiana
University. The 'Astrotest' that I am about to discuss is similar to
their approach.
Devising the Astrotest
In May 1994 the Algemeen Dagblad (General Daily), a Dutch national
newspaper, published an article by Martin Boot, a former astrologer
who now works as a psychotherapist. Boot argued that astrologers
cannot predict. In response, the astrologer Rene Jelsma wrote a
rebuttal that was published under the heading "Astrologer can really
predict".
I decided to offer an experimental solution to this difference of
opinion by inviting astrologers to take part in the Astrotest of the
Skepsis Foundation. My proposal was as follows: All participants will
receive the birth data (date, time and place) of seven anonymous test
subjects. They will also receive seven questionnaires filled out by
these subjects. The questions will be devised by the participants.
They have to match each birth chart with the corresponding
questionnaire. To encourage participation, I offered 5000 guilders
(2500 dollars) to those who were able to match all seven charts.
The response was beyond expectation. More than 70 people showed
willingness to participate. I sent them a brief questionnaire to
determine how much experience they had in astrology. I also asked them
to supply me with a number of questions that I could put to my test
subjects. Later on, more astrologers volunteered. Some of them
replaced those who had not returned my questionnaire. It was decided,
however, that the maximum number of astrologers should be 50, because
we wanted to limit our risk of loosing the 5000 guilders. Even without
any astrological knowledge, each participant would have a chance of 1
in 5040 to obtain the money.
It was not easy to find suitable test subjects. Initially, I collected
people who had all been born in 1948. The president of the NGPA (Dutch
Society of Practising Astrologers), however, pointed out that in those
days the registered birthtimes were often rounded to the full or half
hour. Therefore, I decided to use subjects that were born around 1958.
After I had obtained their birth certificates, I used a computer
program to calculate their charts. Then I noticed that four of my
subjects had an ascendent that was near the cusp between two signs. If
they were born five minutes later or earlier than the time that was
registered in their birth certificate, they would have had a different
ascendending sign. Because I could not be sure that the birth times
were correct to the minute, I felt obliged to replaced these subjects
with others with a less ambiguous ascendent.
On the average the participants sent me ten questions to be answered
by the test subjects, leaving aside those that did not formulate any
questions. I synthesized the questions into a list of 25 that covered
several aspects of the subjects life: their education, vocation,
hobbies, interests, main goals, personality, relationships, health,
religion, etc. In addition, I asked them for the dates of some
important events in their life, because many participants had shown an
interest in specific dates. Finally, I added 24 multiple choice
questions that I had taken from the Berkeley Personality Profile.
Eight experienced astrologers were asked for their opinion about the
questionnaire. They had no major objections against it. At the
suggestion of one of them I added three multiple choice questions
covering the family background of the subjects. Finally, the
questionnaires and the list of birth data were sent to a few skeptics
who tried to find the matching pairs. Although one of them scored 3
hits, there was no reason to suspect that any of the pairs could be
identified by using hidden clues.
Expectations vs results
In the beginning of December 1994 all data were sent to the 50
participants of the Astrotest. They had ten weeks to complete the
test. I allowed them to formulate an additional question after
studying the charts, but only one person did.
Eventually, 44 astrologers completed the test. Many of them had much
experience. Half of the participants had read at least fifty books on
astrology. Three quarters had taken a course in astrology and one
quarter was training others. At least half of the participants had
analyzed over a hundred astrological charts and one-third was
frequently paid for it's services. One quarter was member of the Dutch
Society of Practising Astrologers (NGPA).
The astrologers were asked to indicate how many correct matches they
would have expected. There were 36 participants who revealed their
expectations. Half of them predicted that they had matched all
subjects with the correct charts. Only six astrologers expected less
than four hits.
In fact, the most successful astrologer achieved only three correct
matches, whereas half of the participants (22) did not score a single
hit. The average number of hits was 0.75. This is 0.25 below the mean
change expectation (MCE), a deviation that is not significant.
Moreover, there was no evidence that the most experienced astrologers
did any better than beginners.
It is interesting to compare the entries of the participants with each
other. Because they all had received the same information, one would
expect many similar responses. Actually, the lack of agreement was
striking. Each of the seven charts could be paired with seven
questionnaires. Of these 49 possible combinations, none was selected
more than twelve times. It was as if each astrologer had used a random
generator to determine the correct matches. There were only two
astrologers who had independently arrived at the same solution (p =
0.18). Two other entries were also identical, but in this case the
participants had joined forces.
Unconvincing excuses
Afterwards, I sent all participants a short questionnaire to find out
more about the impact of their negative results. Nine of the 22
respondents confessed that they were surprised by the lack of
agreement between the participants. Four admitted that the
possibilities of astrology were more limited then they had thought,
and seven came to the conclusion that astrology only works in actual
practice. Nevertheless, sixteen respondents still believed that
science can prove astrology right.
I asked the astrologers which factors might be responsible for the
disappointing results. Ten respondents found the horoscopes too much
alike. They pointed out that Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto were
nearly always located in the same astrological sign. Uranus, for
instance, was always in Leo. This is not surprising because Uranus
needs seven years to move from one sign to the next. The age
differences between the test subjects were necessarily much smaller,
because the questionnaires contained much information that could be
used to estimate their age. Anyhow, the horoscopes showed numerous
differences that were hard to overlook.
Ten respondents complained that the answers of the subjects were often
similar. For instance, in reply to a multiple choice question about
their job, all subjects claimed to be reliable workers. But again,
there were many more differences than similarities. Moreover, even in
those cases when most subjects expressed a similar opinion, there were
usually dissenters. For example, although four subjects had a vivid
imagination and were fond of aesthetic experiences, there was one
subject who showed not the slightest appreciation for such
experiences. Why didn't his chart stand out from the others?
Nine respondents suspected that the questions were not always answered
truthfully. Perhaps the subjects had a lack of self-knowledge or tried
to present a flattering image of themselves. However, in spite of this
potential bias, most questions concerned verifiable facts. There is no
reason to assume that the subjects lied about their hobbies or the
date of their wedding. Even if all facts were false (including the
birth dates), this would not explain why the astrologers failed to
demonstrate mutual agreement.
The majority of the respondents (13) asserted that the subjects had
not supplied enough information. We cannot rule out the possibility
that the chance results were due to a lack of relevant details. It
should be remarked, however, that nearly all participants had asked
for less information than they actually received. One might just as
well argue that they could not see the wood for the trees.
Is there a way out?
If astrology really works, it should be possible to design a test that
satisfies both scientists and astrologers. Unfortunately, astrologers
never specify what kind of test would be acceptable to them. They
argue that astrological research is very difficult because scientific
methods are too crude, intrusive or mechanical. Apparently, the
alleged astrological effects are so subtle and hard to detect that we
may wonder how astrologers had ever been able to identify them.
In order to explain the lack of objective evidence, some leading Dutch
astrologers (Van Assem, 1993) resorted to the paranormal. They believe
that astrologers can only arrive at the correct interpretation of a
chart by using their higher intuition or by tuning in with the cosmic
order. This intuition can solely be used during authentic
consultations. As soon as a scientist interferes by selecting clients
or posing questions, it disappears. Presumably, scientists are not
part of the cosmic order.
According to Geoffrey Dean and Arthur Mather (1994) scientists and
astrologers are in conflict over whether astrology works because they
tend to look at different things: scientists are concerned with
accuracy whereas astrologers look for client satisfaction. Astrologers
tend to believe that their clients are satisfied because astrology is
accurate. This implies that clients would be less satisfied if the
astrologer had inadvertently used an incorrect birth date. Astrology
is in conflict with science as long as it's claims are testable. An
increasing number of astrologers manage to escape from scientific
scrutiny by confining themselves to statements that can not be
falsified. They assert that a horoscope can only provide information
about our inner life, basic nature, true reality, hidden potential,
deepest aspirations, unconscious fears and motives, forgotten trauma's
and possibilities for future development. Astrology, they say, gives
insight into the meaning and quality of our subjective experiences by
locating them within a cosmic frame of reference. It tells us why we
are the way we are, it can clarify our problems and help us to find
solutions - but it can not predict our behaviour. Astrological
interpretations do not even necessarily fit with the introspection by
the person involved, so nothing can prove them wrong.
The most "progressive" astrologers regard astrology as a counselling
skill. To them the horoscope is only a therapeutic tool and not a
source of reliable information.
References
Bastedo, R.W. (1978). An emperical test of popular astrology.
Skeptical Inquirer, 3(1), 17-38.
Culver, R.B. & Ianna, P.A. (1984). Astrology: true or false? Buffalo:
Prometheus.
Dean, G. (1987). Does astrology need to be true? Scientific Inquirer,
11(3), 257-273.
Dean, G. & Mather, A. (1994). Is the scientific approach relevant to
astrology? Correlation, 13(1), 11-18.
Gauquelin, M. (1982). Zodiac and personality: an emperical study.
Skeptical Inquirer, 6(3), 57-65.
Gauquelin, M. (1988). Written in the stars. Wellingborough: Aquarian
Press, p. 252.
Hentschel, U. & Kiessling, M. (1985). Season of birth and personality:
another instance of noncorrespondence. Journal of Social Psychology,
125(5), 577-585.
McGervey, J.D. (1977). A statistical test of sun-sign astrology. The
Zetetic, 1(2), 49-54.
McGrew, J.H. & McFall, R.M. (1990). A scientific inquiry into the
validity of astrology. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 4(1), 75-83.
Startup, M. (1984). Personality and planetary positions at birth: an
attempted replication with ordinary people. Correlation, 4(2), 4-13.
Tyson, G.A. (1980). Occupation and astrology or season of birth: a
myth? The Journal of Social Psychology, 110, 73-78. Tyson, G.A.
(1984). An emperical test of the astrological theory of personality.
Personality and Individual Differences, 5(2), 247-250.
Van Assem, L. (1993). The astrologer's philosophy of life.
Correlation, 12(1), 52-54.
Van Rooij, J.J.F. (1993). Jungian typology and astrology: an emperical
test. Correlation, 12(1), 28-32.
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Many don't know how to remove the internationalization options of google.
Here is a answer:
As you have discovered, Google normally redirects
users in certain countries from www.google.com to one of our local
destination sites (for example, www.google.fr for Google France). We use
the Internet address assigned to your computer, which is frequently the
Internet address of your Internet service provider (ISP), to determine
which Google site corresponds to your geographic location. We also offer
you the option of avoiding this redirect and using www.google.com instead.
If you've been redirected incorrectly or aren't being taken to the Google
site you prefer, follow the instructions below to direct your browser back
to www.google.com. As long as you have cookies enabled in your browser,
you'll only have to do this once; after that, your browser will connect
directly to www.google.com each time you visit Google. For more
information on cookies, go to http://www.google.com/cookies.html
and http://www.google.com/privacy.html.
On the bottom right-hand side of the page is a link that says
"Google.com." When you click on this link, you'll be taken to
www.google.com on all future visits.
It's very important to note that your browser will only "remember" that
you are opting out of Internet address detection if you have cookies
enabled. If cookies are disabled, you'll experience the same redirect each
time you visit Google. You can solve this either by enabling cookies in
your browser or by setting a new bookmark for http://www.google.com/webhp.
In the latter case, you'll be taken to http://www.google.com/webhp (this
is exactly the same as www.google.com) each time you select the bookmark.
Here is a answer:
As you have discovered, Google normally redirects
users in certain countries from www.google.com to one of our local
destination sites (for example, www.google.fr for Google France). We use
the Internet address assigned to your computer, which is frequently the
Internet address of your Internet service provider (ISP), to determine
which Google site corresponds to your geographic location. We also offer
you the option of avoiding this redirect and using www.google.com instead.
If you've been redirected incorrectly or aren't being taken to the Google
site you prefer, follow the instructions below to direct your browser back
to www.google.com. As long as you have cookies enabled in your browser,
you'll only have to do this once; after that, your browser will connect
directly to www.google.com each time you visit Google. For more
information on cookies, go to http://www.google.com/cookies.html
and http://www.google.com/privacy.html.
On the bottom right-hand side of the page is a link that says
"Google.com." When you click on this link, you'll be taken to
www.google.com on all future visits.
It's very important to note that your browser will only "remember" that
you are opting out of Internet address detection if you have cookies
enabled. If cookies are disabled, you'll experience the same redirect each
time you visit Google. You can solve this either by enabling cookies in
your browser or by setting a new bookmark for http://www.google.com/webhp.
In the latter case, you'll be taken to http://www.google.com/webhp (this
is exactly the same as www.google.com) each time you select the bookmark.