Could you guys post (or link to) a version of this chart that isn't unreadably small?
Votes: +0

Here's links to the information is beautiful explanation page and the larger version of the chart:
http://www.informationisbeauti...roscoped/
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/horoscoped/ Votes: +5

@AlimightyBOB http://www.informationisbeauti...oroscoped/

Mike Adams, the uberquack of naturalnews.com (he actually believes that the Tuscon shooter was a mind-controlled Manchurian Candidate by the dark forces or whatever), which would be hilarious except for the fact that millions of decent people read his stuff) posted a story entitled "Principle of astrology proven to be scientific" http://www.naturalnews.com/030...basis.html

The study he's referring to apparently shows "mice born in the winter showed a "consistent slowing" of their daytime activity. They were also more susceptible to symptoms that we might call "Seasonal Affective Disorder."

So somehow this proves that the star positions has something to do with it. I know, the guy is beyond scary.

Anyway, I think it's worth noting that you would expect certain patterns to emerge in the human race due to other cycles that take place. But they take it waaayyyy to far. The study has absolutely nothing to do with astrology.

I think that studying cycles or patterns in humanity is worthwhile if we can pinpoint most of the causation. That would be science. Votes: +4

Sorry for the fail on the previous post. Here's a second (hopefully successful) attempt:
http://www.informationisbeauti...oroscoped/
http://www.informationisbeauti...oroscoped/ Votes: +1

My funniest astrology experience was when someone said they could tell my star sign. After 4 incorrect guesses, they gave up and I told them it - whereupon they nodded sagely and said 'ah yes, fire sign'.

Now this article shows they were right, every time. Votes: +1

Unfortunately, I think Phil Plait's critique runs off the rails right from the start when he says:

...they all operate under a very broad working assumption: there is some sort of force from the heavens that influences us here on Earth. There are lots of different attributions for this force (some say gravity, some say electromagnetism, some say a force that cannot be measured), but it all boils down to the planets and stars having an effect on people./quote]
This might be true for some schools of astrology, but certainly not all, and perhaps not even most. Very often, no causal relationship from the stars to human affairs is posited at all, any more than we would say that a clock causes the passage of time. Whether this is historically true I can't say (hence expressions like a person's fate being "governed" by one planet or another) but it does seem to be true now.

This is not to say that astrology is NOT wrong. Of course it's wrong. But I think he took aim at a suboptimal target there.

Votes: +0

Ugh -- sorry, I failed on my tag closure there..
Votes: +2

A couple of weeks ago, I posted a comment on an Internet message board in which Park Kunkle's proposed "correction" to the zodiac calendar was being discussed. I said that proposing a correction to the astrological calculus in light of the facts of astronomy is like proposing a correction to the practice of divination by chicken bones in light of some facts about the anatomy of chickens--the point being that neither practice is answerable to reality. I got a reply saying that I was misled by "mainstream 'sun sign' astrology you see in newspaper horoscopes and the mainstream media," which, this person implied, was not real or true astrology. Such a person would simply brush aside the results of McCandless's researches as having no bearing on "real" astrology.

By the way, I believe that this is an instance not of the fallacy of no true Scotsman but rather of the fallacy of special pleading. It would be "no true Scotsman" to reason from the fact that some astrological forecasts are found to be vacuous to the conclusion that those forecasts are not real astrology. But that is not what I think this person was doing. He has an antecedent idea of which astrological practices are the real ones (or the serious ones or the credible ones or whatever--he didn't use a specific adjective to set them apart) and which ones are not, and he is dismissing critical arguments concerning astrology in general because they don't take account of the specific kind of astrology that he favors, whatever it may be. Votes: +1

http://www.astrology-and-science.com/hpage.htm Votes: +0

When asked what your sign is, just reply, "Feces." That usually stops them in their tracks. Votes: +8

That's very fun. I'd like to see a similar chart for psychic readings. Votes: +0

Not that I claim this, but the astrologers can quickly point out that it's the other 10% that makes each sign unique.

If Kunkle's changes are accepted, it puts their whole premise into disarray. Votes: +2

@ Kritikos

Interesting answer.

I've been trying to figure out which logical fallacy is applicable when people give me the "Then how do you explain XYZ?" When I assert that there are no supernatural beings doing miracles for the faithful.

Would you know which fallacy they're using?

Thanks, Willy

PS. Just took a quick look at your blog. IMHO Rep. John Shimkus is just plain bat-sheet crazy. Votes: -1

What kind of thing is supposed to go in place of "XYZ"? Can you give an example? Votes: +0

>The correct response
written by EarlyOut, January 25, 2011
When asked what your sign is, just reply, "Feces." That usually stops them in their tracks.

No, I have to disagree. The best response was made by a colleague decades ago (at my expense):

When a woman in the office asked me what my sign was, before I could answer he said, "He's off the chart!" Votes: +0

It can be one of several depending on the situation.

It might be a case of a false dilemma, when an unstated premise is, "Either theory A can explain XYZ, or God did it." Absent any positive evidence that God in fact did it, it may instead be true that theory B (perhaps as yet unproposed) is a better explanation.

Or it might be "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". "I prayed for XYZ to happen, and it did! How do you explain *that*?" An action is presumed to be the cause of an effect even though there is no direct evidence that the two are connected. There is connected psychological phenomenon here called confirmation bias, where people tend to better remember all the times a presumed cause appears to work than all the (usually much more numerous) times when it didn't. This has the effect of grossly exaggerating the presumed cause's apparent effect.

People also tend to apply special pleading here, where an event is made to fit a previous prayer even though an outside observer might say that what was asked for was not what was received. This results in many false positives. Here's a real-world example: I know a couple who are infertile. At one point the mother (who I think is the one with the physical problem) made a vow to the Virgin Mary before a famous icon in her ancestral village in Greece, asking that she be granted children, and if they ever arrived she would dedicate them before that icon. (A purely ritual act which made no practical difference in the kids' lives other than taking a trip to Greece.) Well, the couple ended up adopting two children, and they had to spend the wife's inheritance to do it. She treated this as if it were the fulfillment of her prayer, even though it was plainly not what she had in mind to start with and required a considerable effort and expenditure on their part. So there she was in Greece, on her knees with her kids in her arms, thanking the Virgin for something she and her husband had done all on their own in a not-at-all-miraculous way. (Unless successfully navigating the bureaucracy of overseas adoption is a miracle. And it may well be. ) Votes: +1

@ Kritikos

Sorry for being a little vague. XYZ could be almost any anecdotal event that has no obvious cause. The credulous will usually state that their favorite god or supernatural process is responsible for the outcome. If someone like me asks for evidence that the supernatural being/process is the cause they will (usually) angrily say "Well how do YOU explain it?"

Thanks to lytrigian provided some clear examples.
False dilemma, "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" and special pleading seems to fit well.

One of the most memorable examples for me was when I worked with "born again" old coot. He told me how someone had incurable kidney disease was cured and thus the existence of his god was proved! When I asked the usual questions such as did the person actually have a disease and might have been misdiagnosed he got pissed off and shouted, "HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN IT THEN!" Votes: +0

I would like to know who and how many people write the forecasts for the publications? Do they also write messages for fortune cookies? Do they claim some special prescience? Votes: +0