On Apr 26, 4:31 am, Apollia <xerxes...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 11:37 am, Ray Murphy <ray...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >On Apr 24, 9:20 pm, Apollia <xerxes...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Apr 23, 6:50 am, Ray Murphy <ray...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >On Apr 23, 4:06 pm, Apollia <xerxes...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> On Apr 22, 10:20 am, Ray Murphy <ray...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> >On Apr 22, 4:35 pm, Apollia <xerxes...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Apr 20, 6:24 pm, "Ray Murphy" <ray...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> >> > "Apollia" <xerxes...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >> >> >>
>news:0aacfaae-4c86-4b69-b1fd-55f3a29d21c1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >[......]
.
>
> >> Thanks, never knew about that. They do make some valid points - I've
> >> always known that LiveJournal data is far from guaranteed to all be
> >> accurate, and, truly serious research would have to use much more
> >> credible sources.
>
> >RM: Yes, some of the points are valid but it is more appropriate to
> >mention them in rational discussion and without allegations of "bad"
> >research and other innuendo. If you can make any sense from the rest
> >of the "educational" PDF, let me know.
>
> Well, I haven't read the whole thing yet, but, I did find the
> explanation of "chi square" helpful, at least.
>
> >I've often tried to comprehend
> >why the huge array of meaningless stats are presented (in Excel
> >format) for the various research projects.
>
> Yes, I don't like the PDF or Excel formats at all.
RM: Oops, I didn't explain myself clearly. The main problem was no the
format but the meaningless stats. Hardly any of the (hundreds) of Chi
square results in the various projects in the Excel files will yield
statistically significant results, despite being over the magical Chi
Square 4.5.
[....]
> >> Yes, that's acceptable. I hope to make something that will be
capable
> >> of both reading in and outputting files in lots of different formats.
>
> >RM: Solar fire's datafile format is non-human readable, and apparently
> >it is not easy (or possible) to translate to or from it without
> >special permission.
>
> I never have liked Solar Fire. Guess I'll skip that, then... :-)
RM: If Jigsaw format is used it can be easily translated in Solar
Fire.
> >Astrolog doesn't even HAVE datafile format -
> >every chart is a separate text file.
>
> Even so, I definitely like Astrolog's easily copied-and-pasted command
> lines - I think they're a better way to quickly share data in an
> internet discussion than uploading a chart image file.
>
> I wish all astrology programs had a feature like that, where you could
> just copy and paste in a line of data and instantly see a chart. It
> really saves some time.
RM: Most other programs probably wouldn't use copy/paste from here on.
I tried several years ago to create interest a universal datafile
system like Astrolog's format - but comprehensible version to a casual
user, but there was no interest. If we had such a thing all programs
could translate to or from it. I'm surprised that Astrolog users still
haven't made translators so their files can be read by other programs.
[....]
> >RM: Well let's put it this way - I've spent 5 years writing, improving
> >and using my transit/synastry program, but I wouldn't even share it
> >with my best friend or even explain how it works, so I don't think
> >I'll bother putting it on the net for free :-)
>
> OK. :-) I just thought it was worth trying to see if I (or Richard
> Stallman) could persuade you, since I'm sure they're some absolutely
> fantastic programs. :-)
RM: I'll read his article carefully next time. I only skimmed through
it and didn't spot anything that made me slow down.
[...]
> >> Same here. It seems like on average skeptics are more interested in
> >> really testing and researching astrology than astrologers. :-)
>
> >RM: Strictly speaking no one can test anything in astrology because we
> >don't have any specific claim that CAN be tested.
>
> What is an example of a specific claim that could be tested?
RM: Well it's more than any specific claim. If we thought we could
construct one, it would need to be accepted in astrology circles to a
credible degree before anyone could legitimately call it a claim of
astrology (or a claim of a significant bunch of astrologers). It would
be no good saying "Astrologers can pick Sun signs on TV shows and in
circus tents" because we're not taught how to do it, even if it COULD
be done.
Here's an example, which would probably never be generally accepted,
because our peers wouldn't have a clue if it's right or wrong. They
would hardly do what 186 scientists did 2 decades ago and sign a
statement about something they knew nothing about. [quoting a bit of
Rob Hand in his interview conducted by Martin Lewicki on this board].
Let's say we were convinced that transitting Mars con Mercury with a 3
degree orb resulted in hand injuries more often than we would expect
by chance (at better than the .05 level) then that could be a claim.
> >All anyone can do is
> >conduct surveys based on the broad claims or theory of astrology. This
> >also explains why (contrary to urban myth) nothing in astrology has
> >ever been debunked. The only things that have been debunked have been
> >astrologers' personal and wild claims about things they've never
> >actually tested. The rest were not even personal claims - yet frauds
> >still say they debunked astrology with them :-)
>
> Yes, it definitely doesn't make sense for anyone to jump to
> conclusions that all of astrology has been debunked simply because a
> test of one small part of astrology (or of something claimed by
> someone to be valid astrology) was failed.
RM: It's quite whacky how scientists and academics operate sometimes.
They spend an inordinate amount of time explaining how the rules must
be rigidly adhered to, and how evidence must be scrupulously gathered
and the truth must be told and how no experiment means anything unless
it is replicated at least once, but then they proceed to (supposedly)
test astrology, tell lies, misrepresent us and then gleefully declare
that not ONLY has their flakey test of (non-astrology) failed - but
ALL of astrology has failed along with it. It's quite sick really -
how that sort of thing is tolerated by other academics. I sometimes
wonder what would happen if they cavorted around like that after doing
a test on aspirin (or something they thought MIGHT have beeen aspirin)
and then declared that they had debunked medicine.
[....]
> ----
>
> Apollia My website:http://www.astroblahhh.com/
Ray
|
