Never said it was, only said that the existence of non-vague horoscope was a counter-example against your sweepingly certain statement that all horoscopes are vague.
Don’t think I haven’t noticed that every time I raise a valid point, you ignore it and try to pivot to a different one.
And what proof do you have that it was non vague? Did you do a double blind control with a horoscope made for you, and some random ones made for other people, and determine if you could accurately pick out which one was yours?
So no, your point is not valid because you did not have a control. Without controls to your “experiment” the results are entirely meaningless.
I did, actually. I’ve never believed in astrology, and I have generally been of the belief that they are just vague as you’ve said. So when it was insisted I do a full chart, that was part of my conditions. They were all fairly non-vague, their predictions were specific and excluded common personality aspects.
The one I chose as closest to my personality description was did in fact correspond to my actual chart.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure you’re lying now, because you would have brought that up ages ago if that was the case.
And in a proper study that was done, that I linked you to, found that with a group of 50 people they were no better able to pick their actual astrology report than random chance. So no, you are still full of shit.
Because you would have said I was lying then too, and it wasn’t relevant. Because my position wasn’t that astrology is accurate. My position was that not every horoscope is vague enough to apply to anyone.
Have you considered that the differences in horoscope generation? Did the study control from different astrologers, difference in methods, difference in detail?
None of which is relevant, because, again, my statement wasn’t that astrology is accurate. My statement was that not every horoscope is vague enough to apply to anyone. If there exists one single horoscope which excludes one single person, the statement “All horoscopes are vague enough to apply to anyone” is false. This is basic logic, you should’ve covered this in undergrad.
Nope, you’re just a liar. Only after I told you how to properly do a double blind experiment did you say that’s what you did.
Fuck off liar.
And go read the paper. The people couldn’t tell a real astrology report from a random computer generated one. If astrology reports were so accurate the people could pick out out from an obviously fake one, but they could not.
And just because you read something as specific does not make it specific. I already sent you information about the Barnum effect, which you repeatedly ignored.
You know nothing of science, how dare you make any claims that I do not.
Since your username is on lemmy.ca, and you claim to be at a top 20 university, I assume you are at U of T. Perhaps you could sit in on HPS100 sometime for a refresher.
About being a professional scientist? I’m not, but that doesn’t matter.
I’ve answered every other question. And your paper about astrology continues to be irrelevant to my point: the fundamental uncertainty of science.
I suspect you’re lying, since you claim to be a professional scientist, yet you:
Constantly conflate accuracy with precision
Believe in unfalsifiable truths in the empirical sciences
Think that credentials themselves are evidence
That’s all middle school stuff.
Watch the video. It’s a lecture at a global top 20 university that you might recognize, and reiterates all the points I’ve been making:
That absolute certainty is fundamentally unattainable in the empirical sciences (he even explicitly includes evolution and gravity). That the only absolute certainty possible is in the formal sciences (math, logic, etc) because they are defined not observed.
Or do you think you know more about this topic than this professor, who teaches this exact topic, at a global top 20 university?
Never said it was, only said that the existence of non-vague horoscope was a counter-example against your sweepingly certain statement that all horoscopes are vague.
Don’t think I haven’t noticed that every time I raise a valid point, you ignore it and try to pivot to a different one.
And what proof do you have that it was non vague? Did you do a double blind control with a horoscope made for you, and some random ones made for other people, and determine if you could accurately pick out which one was yours?
So no, your point is not valid because you did not have a control. Without controls to your “experiment” the results are entirely meaningless.
I did, actually. I’ve never believed in astrology, and I have generally been of the belief that they are just vague as you’ve said. So when it was insisted I do a full chart, that was part of my conditions. They were all fairly non-vague, their predictions were specific and excluded common personality aspects.
The one I chose as closest to my personality description was did in fact correspond to my actual chart.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure you’re lying now, because you would have brought that up ages ago if that was the case.
And in a proper study that was done, that I linked you to, found that with a group of 50 people they were no better able to pick their actual astrology report than random chance. So no, you are still full of shit.
What actual science have you done?
Because you would have said I was lying then too, and it wasn’t relevant. Because my position wasn’t that astrology is accurate. My position was that not every horoscope is vague enough to apply to anyone.
Have you considered that the differences in horoscope generation? Did the study control from different astrologers, difference in methods, difference in detail?
None of which is relevant, because, again, my statement wasn’t that astrology is accurate. My statement was that not every horoscope is vague enough to apply to anyone. If there exists one single horoscope which excludes one single person, the statement “All horoscopes are vague enough to apply to anyone” is false. This is basic logic, you should’ve covered this in undergrad.
Nope, you’re just a liar. Only after I told you how to properly do a double blind experiment did you say that’s what you did.
Fuck off liar.
And go read the paper. The people couldn’t tell a real astrology report from a random computer generated one. If astrology reports were so accurate the people could pick out out from an obviously fake one, but they could not.
Exactly why I didn’t bring it up.
Still haven’t addressed the methodology of the “real” astrologers in that study, and again, still not relevant.
Read this once again, slowly:
I did not claim astrology was accurate.
My claim was that it was not -always- vague.
A report does not have to be accurate to be specific.
You are arguing against a claim I did not make instead of the one I did make.
Read the paper.
And just because you read something as specific does not make it specific. I already sent you information about the Barnum effect, which you repeatedly ignored.
You know nothing of science, how dare you make any claims that I do not.
There it is again, diverting from my actual position to argue again something else.
Since obviously you flunked middle school science:
Precision =/= accuracy. You continue to argue against the accuracy of astrology, which was not a part of my position.
Since your username is on lemmy.ca, and you claim to be at a top 20 university, I assume you are at U of T. Perhaps you could sit in on HPS100 sometime for a refresher.
Fuck off liar, or answer one of the many actual questions I posed you, or just read the papers I sent you.
No, you won’t do any of that so just fuck off.
Which questions haven’t I answered?
About being a professional scientist? I’m not, but that doesn’t matter.
I’ve answered every other question. And your paper about astrology continues to be irrelevant to my point: the fundamental uncertainty of science.
I suspect you’re lying, since you claim to be a professional scientist, yet you:
Constantly conflate accuracy with precision
Believe in unfalsifiable truths in the empirical sciences
Think that credentials themselves are evidence
That’s all middle school stuff.
Watch the video. It’s a lecture at a global top 20 university that you might recognize, and reiterates all the points I’ve been making:
That absolute certainty is fundamentally unattainable in the empirical sciences (he even explicitly includes evolution and gravity). That the only absolute certainty possible is in the formal sciences (math, logic, etc) because they are defined not observed.
Or do you think you know more about this topic than this professor, who teaches this exact topic, at a global top 20 university?