Bogosity Ep. 1: Astrology EXPANDED&REMASTERED Pt. 2

[NUTCASE71733]

BuuuurrrrRRRRRN!!!

I love how you said that lol. Nice work.

[mandolinic]

Just for clarification at 8:03. In Astrology, the ten "planets" are the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. They're still called planets, even though the Sun is a star, the Moon is a satellite, and Pluto has been downgraded to a dwarf planet. Earth is missing from the list altogether, as are other Pluto-like objects, such as Eris and Ceres.

As you can see, it's all highly scientific ;-)

[metacarpi]

If you want to read a falsifiable hypothesis tested that has something to say about an astrological claim you should read the chapter "An astrological experiment" in "Synchronicity" by CGJung.

The Forer effect only applies to self reporting, but his experiment was testing astrological events predicting something measured empirically, a marriage. What's more his experiment doesn't even consider any zodiac sign as a variable.

This video doesn't even go beyond the levels of polemic really.

[shanedk]

@metacarpi Sorry, but that--ONCE AGAIN--is completely nullified by the Time Twins Study.

Why does everyone keep ignoring that part?

[metacarpi]

@shanedk

I might start with the assertion that this isn't a game of trumps, it doesn't nullify the fact that astrology may or may not predict an affinity in marriage, it's an unrelated hypothesis correlating horoscopes with rather in-vogue measures of personality. I think you would have to concede that if you didn't want to risk being labelled a pseudo-sceptic.

[shanedk]

@metacarpi There are some forms of evidence that DO trump others. If there's no association AT ALL, then it doesn't matter whether you're talking about marriage or other personality issues. There's no "there" there.

[metacarpi]

You've assumed what you've set out to prove. You're a pseudo-sceptic.

[Virgil0211]

@metacarpi Unless you were speaking into a mirror, you've just projected your own flaws onto someone else. I'm sorry, but your pet superstition is false. If you want to believe in it despite the evidence, that's your perogative. Just don't pretend that it's somehow 'scientific', or call people 'pseudo-skeptics' because they point out the holes in your evidence when you bug them.

[metacarpi]

@Virgil0211

Only one thing merits a response in this all but vulgar reply, and that is the lack of confidence you are willing to place in anyone who might be serious about evaluating a study that gives a positive result. Why the assumption of bad faith? I could equally explain away your lack of faith as an extreme compensation for your own inability to face up to the irrational nature of your own psyche.

Why can't we open up the discussion? Maybe you're terrified that it might be true?

[shanedk]

@metacarpi "who might be serious about evaluating a study that gives a positive result."

Except that it HAS been evaluated, and it does NOT give a positive result. The differences in Jung's study were too small to be statistically significant.

Then there's that tiny little matter of the Time Twins study again...

[andromidius]

@metacarpi What's a psuedo-sceptic? Someone who doesn't believe in pseudo-science? Because not believing something that's not been proven isn't at all pseudo. That would be someone not believing something that is beyond doubt. Get your logic straight!

[andromidius]

@metacarpi The only thing it'll confirm is whether or not both partners are gullible enough to believe it. And if you tell someone something enough times and with enough certainty...sometimes they start really believing it. Its how all religions, superstitions and cults grow and prosper.

[pi3p142]

As I write, 223 likes and 146 dislikes!?? 146, really! Is that 146 people who won't leave the house without checking their horoscope in the newspaper?

[Phavonic]

When did James Randi offer that money? Is it still open for a nutter like me to go for?

[shanedk]

@Phavonic Yes, all the info's available at the JREF web site.

[vspqbd]

Isn't that James Young dude the guy who DMCA's this episode of Bogosity (the other posting of it) a few years ago?

[shanedk]

@vspqbd Yep.

[vspqbd]

@shanedk

Doesn't surprise me one bit.

[shanedk]

@yuriatayde Well, because, you see, the zodiac, as opposed to the constellations, is a system of, not the constellations, because they're not a part of astrology, but to the things that astrologers consider, when they make a chart, and it's a part of, of... of...

Look! A bowl of nuts!

:^)

[RaustBD]

Oh, I remember! IT WAS YOU!

[jxvwp]

"It's still the same bowl BUT YOUR BRAINS HAVE FALLEN OUT!"

Truly hilarious.

[billygutter01]

I've just started watching this series...

I've just subscribed!

You the man!

[Bouncer9000]

YOUR BRAINS HAVE FALLEN OUT!! Best line, Shane!

[Albukhshi]

you know, if you wanted to disprove astrology, just mention Anne Boleyn; the astrologers in 1533 told Henry VIII that the baby in Anne's belly would be a son. 'nuff said.

but this was an excellent episode, and I relly liked the nut bowl scene. even my mom is laughing at your owning of that guy :D

[STS1804]

How did u find out the position of the sun on that day? What source? A link would be fantastic. Great video keep up the good work!!!

[shanedk]

Google "Stellarium." Free astronomy software.

[Alex69Walker]

You seem very committed to defending your stance on this issue. There certainly is much more evidence to defend the notion that astrology is bogosity than there is evidence to defend it as a valid ideology. I would like to test your commitment. Read Cosmos and Psyche, a book written by a man named Richard Tarnas. He draws on an encyclopedic knowledge of western history and 30 years of painstaking research. post a video detailing your opinions of his work.

[Alex69Walker]

"The truth is, you astrologers got so tired of astronomers owning you on the precession issue that you just cooked this up as a reason why the zodiac is off."

Not really, it's called tropical astrology and it is based on the solstices and equinoxes. The astrological year begins with Aries at exactly the moment of the vernal equinox, transitions from Gemini into Cancer at exactly the moment of the summer solstice, etc.

[christo930]

"And they are doing it without a license"

Don't you oppose people having to have a gov license to do their thing? You did bring that up about African hair braiders in another video.

I am not defending astrology, but you can't have it both ways. Cry no license for something you don't like, but then cry against licensing for other things.

[shanedk]

I meant that they're doing it without the formal training, knowledge, and certification; it's just that right now that requires a license.

[AlmightyAtheismo]

What's really funny is that the discrepancy between the location of the "signs/houses" and the actual constellations means that even if Astrology is right, it's still wrong.

[frosty956]

Its still the same bowl, but your brains have fallen out! BURN!

[civisromae]

"What's the science of love/creativity?"

Psychology. Duh!

[shanedk]

Why don't you prove it to Randi and win the million?

[Kirkwhisper]

Yeah, Squeaky, (shamedk) did a credible job exposing astrology. Fakery. Too bad he's got his own problem believing fake theories..a la evolution. The universe/world came from nothing (Hawking!), generated life all by itself, and now we have millions of varities of living organisms because of an accidental occurrence? The genius is but a little inconsistent isn't he?

[flamablesteve]

I'm a Sagittarius.

here's a brief description: "You are a gambler and an adventurer at heart, one who loves to take risks, to discover and explore new worlds, and to take the untried path rather than the safe, reliable one."

WOW.

I have Generalized Anxiety Disorder.

It couldn't possibly be more wrong.

[SaviorOfLogic]

Nice video, but the prise thing makes it sound a bit too much likeHovind's moving goalposts

[Deioth]

WTF!? LOL! "BUT YOUR BRAINS HAVE FALLEN OUT! BUUUURN!"

I love random.

[HasimirFenring1106]

'IT WAS YOU!' Brilliant!

[Saga000]

What kind of kills this video's credibility are your "leaps" to conclusions, and misinformation. For instance, astrology exists for over 4000 years (when the Zodiac and Constelations didn't match either) but you claim 2000... Second, you conclude that ALL astrologers are bogus, but you conveniently ignore the fact there's no official organization that defines who can or can't be a practicing astrologer - which is a logical motive for the lack of (CONTINUES)

[Saga000]

(CONTINUATION) consistency. Imagine what it would be like if people didn't need a licence to practice medicine either, can you imagine the chaos? In other words, there could very well be a few good astrologers in the world, but these "conclusions" seem to leave no room for that possibility. I too find many people who call themselves "astrologers" to be pathetic, but I don't judge astrology (and its potential, as a whole) by their words/actions. I find a more scientific approach is to (CONTINUES)

[Saga000]

(CONTINUATION) separate the "wheat from the chaff" and THEN test what actually makes sense. Sorry for the long comment.

[shanedk]

You get consistency in other sciences without a single official organization. I don't accept that as an excuse.

[Saga000]

Other sciences didn't have to go through all the purposeful misinformation that Astrology went through. As you probably know, the church has been the enemy of astrology since it first began... but that's too long an issue to get into here. Point is, astrology must be handled in its present form and, in my opinion, that means an official stance must happen at some point.

[shanedk]

The church was the enemy of heliocentricism. Many religious people are STILL the enemy of evolution. Those sciences never had these problems.

[Saga000]

The church was (and is) the enemy of many things. On the subject of astrology, however, their gripe is that the theory of God being omnipotent kind of loses steam if people were to believe they have free will - which, incidently, is what astrology ultimately defends (though some people would be forgiven for thinking otherwise, given the obscene amount of self-taught astrologers who practice it as a sort of "fatalistic art" or, worse yet, a religion in its own right (sic)).

[shanedk]

"you claim 2000"

2000 since Ptolemy. Do pay attention.

[Saga000]

Ptolemy didn't create astrology, as you obviously must know. The argument that the constelations and zodiac don't match only makes sense when you consider its known origins.

[shanedk]

He set up the modern zodiac signs. James Young even said he draws heavily from Ptolemy.

[Saga000]

I haven't seen the James Young videos, nor do I know the individual, but if he claimed that, then he's mistaken. In fact, that's easy to prove... Ptolemy lived between the first and second centuries AC, while astrology dates back to thousands of years before that. It's true that the Tetrabiblos is the oldest surviving written document, but all that Ptolemy did in it was a synthesis of what was known about astrology up to that date. In fact, one of the main criticisms to that volume is (CONTINUE)

[Saga000]

(CONTINUES) that Ptolemy focus too much on synthesis and left out pertinent details that would help understand the methods described.

[LordZentei]

It's always refreshing to see ownage of nonsense, but these videos of yours are in addition technically very well made as well as having rich content. Great work, and 5/5. :)

[woodwater1000]

this is western astrology. i found oriental much more logical and specific. send me your data ill tell you

[shanedk]

I know about Vedic and Chinese astrology. They're bogus, too. About the only criticism of them that doesn't apply is the precession thing; everything else applies.

[woodwater1000]

i bet youre talking about year signs like the Rat,Ox etc. Its not like that

[woodwater1000]

wow youre afraid??

[shanedk]

Afraid of what?

I've looked into all sorts of astrology all over the globe. And they're ALL debunked by the Time Twins study.

[woodwater1000]

not really. A person who has the same chart as President Bush isnt going to be president but he`ll be king in his area of work.Your problem is that you think people with the same chart will have the same fate

[shanedk]

You're like the third person to say that. The study assumes NOTHING OF THE KIND. It's obviously just some talking point passed on so astrologers can make a strawman.

Either that, or you're a sockpuppet for the other users...

The Time Twins study dealt with over 100 psychological aspects such as extraversion. People born within 1 minute of each other had no more similarities than people born months apart.

[woodwater1000]

by the way twins are different because from an early age they want to be different from one another. They develop in different directions.

[shanedk]

These are TIME twins. They're unrelated by everything except birth time. There's no "wanting" involved; they have no idea that their "twins" exist!

[woodwater1000]

can you point a link to that study?

[shanedk]

The link's in the credits.

[SIP100]

Nice pwnage. Leaving in east texas in the bible belt it's nice to know sane people exist.

[AisuSeijin]

Hey, I was just wondering if you knew if James Young took down all of his videos on youtube, I can't find them. I was going to piece together a short video showing how I found that creationist guy in your latest video, and James Young, opening their videos in a very similar matter that reminds me of how James Young talks. Also, I went to his website. Did you know he has a list of "fake" astrologers on it? Haha. Watch out for those "fake" astrologers! Go to James Young if you want REAL bullshit!

[Andy120290Returns]

"BURRNN!"

[ZoeMarks]

I thought I'd just post this comment:

CHADOW723 the third generation astroloser is a completely gutless wanker for banning people who post critical comments to his videos.

Can everyone else do this for every video on YT? My fingers are tired?

:-)

[zrice03]

Brains falling out. That's classic.

[lovasip]

Google Scholar.

672 hits for romantic love in the title.

171 hits for creative talent in the title.

Chadow, eat your words!

[shanedk]

Nicely done!

Of course, the point was, he's NOT doing a creative act. If he were, I wouldn't even be doing this video. As I said, he's claiming to be able to help people.

[smaakjeks]

"Google Scholar.

672 hits for romantic love in the title.

171 hits for creative talent in the title.

Chadow, eat your words!"

Yay science!

[CapnOrdinary]

Very nice visual update! The Cap'n likes.