I've seen this before but come back to watch sometimes. It's comforting. That twit got so utterly owned AND made a fool of himself. It does not conclusively prove anything about astrology but it sure as hell does about this bozo.
The problem is that the public needs to be educated on what is 'POP' and what is 'Proper Astrology', society's perception of fate is an image of a grand puppeteer who is out to get us all, how very wrong this is. The very essence of astrology is that we are all in this together, humans are a part of the universe as are the stars.
Instead of playing with words and not taking Astrology seriously at all, scientists should vigorously examine astrology, not leave the credibility of this
ancient ART to a mere 6:27 minutes, many scientists believe that it takes less than this amount of time to disprove astrology as the methods they use only involve the sun signs you find in the local paper. A true scientist would swallow his pride and actively assault this ART with great keen, no, instead immediate bias somehow disproves it.
@CosmicArdency Oh thats easy to tell, any time astrology does not bring an accurate prediction, it is the POP and not the proper astrology, with this classification, we will see proper astrology get it right EVERY time.
Truly, Both sciences came from the same place in time, many years ago. This video is not accurate. The astrological realms planetary cycles, were studied year after year in ancient days, starting with chauldren (sp) priests. These holy men tracked day and night planetary activity. Over time things evolved, astronomy and astrology had two seperate languages, then parted ways...though both serve a higher purpose to mankind.
Hearing this stuff, no ring of truth to it (intuitiion), none.
The Barnum effect: "the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people."
Allow me to use my experience and expertise in astrology of over 33 years to help you unlock the potential of the stars and make the most of every day…
Just Email me your Date of Birth, Your Full Name, Time Of Birth and Place of Birth at mnak.nabeel@gmail.com and donate $ 1 to my Paypal Account using the donate button on my website page.As soon as I get $ 1 You get all your details
Just Visit nabeel-speaks(dot)blogspot(dot)com and got to Astrology service section
Too funny. You can clearly see this twit get more and more flustered and shaky as he is called out, put on the spot and frankly made an utter fool of. Like a fish out of water. They just make this stuff up as they go and then lose it when they know the gig is up. Their could never admit it though. Their paycheck would blow away in the dust.
True the astrologer was getting a little flustered it seems but I hardly think any proof was presented by the skeptic. In the end when the astrologer was giving the reading how can one verify if it is accurate for all we know the skeptic could be denying it's truthfulness so as to win the argument. Honestly I don't know about you but I put no faith in skeptics to tell the truth just like anyone else in a debate.
@kusali11 It isn't up to the skeptic to prove a claim is false. The one making the claim has the onus of proving it. Every time they fail miserably. Your suggestion of long term test is ridiculous because the claim does not come close to meeting standards of evidence or plausibility. It's not about passing judgment. That is a lame red herring. These frauds need to pony up something concrete. Over the ages so far it's been nothing but a joke. They're charlatans. Period.
Talk about red herrings, why bring up a skeptics role when clearly this skeptic is trying to disprove astrology. Heck I see nothing wrong in trying but his points are trivial at best. Second you say astrologers have "the onus of proving it". I agree with this 100% but I think they do prove to their clients which makes them coming back, or are you going to pass judgment that these people are fools? If they are not fools then don't you think saying "Every time they fail miserably" to be incorrect?
@kusali11 What the hell kind of stupid argument is that? You are confusing the issue. The question is simply, is astrology true or false? Weighing the arguments and plausibility there does not seem to be much choice. It has nothing to do with whether the credulous keep at it. This dancing around is tiresome.
There is no confusion here, you claim that astrology is false and I wish to know why. So far you haven't provided a single reason. If you answer the questions I posed we can explore it together. All you do is make blanket statements about those who seek astrologers as "credulous" and how astrologers "just make this stuff up as they go" with no support for your claims. Can I ask have you ever gotten a reading from an astrologer and second do you know how a chart is even cast?
Third you say "Your suggestion of long term test is ridiculous because the claim does not come close to meeting standards of evidence or plausibility. " Can i simply ask why do you need all this?
Well it isnt the skeptics role to prove anything, the burden of proof lies on the astrologer who asserts that astrology is a legitimate and useful application.
If this guy is a leading 40 year astrologer/psychic in a big country like australia, then why are his abilities to demonstrate his talent so poor?
The problem is none of astrologies claims ever seem to withstand basic scrutiny or can be differentiated from trickery used by mentalists and magicians.
See this is what I mean by so called "skeptics" like your self. Just as dogmatic as the church was to Galileo. Not saying this astrologer is Galileo but what support do you have that this guy gave a poor reading? One can hardly gather anything from this short debate. Second read what I wrote before sending a reply, I already addressed your first point about the "skeptics role" in my previous chat with newcoyote.
i dont expect him to prove astrology in this interview so please refrain from claiming that i am bias against him for not giving him a chance.
Astrology has been practised for over 2000 years, but there has never been any demonstrable proof given which shows it to actually work.
So if he is a leading astrologer where is his evidence? Why can a scientist prove predictive power of atoms, evolution, gravity etc, but an astrologer not predict the future with any accuracy?
I don't want to nit pick but you did ask "why are his abilities to demonstrate his talents so poor" so it's pretty hard to say you weren't biased.
Your 2nd point about it being 2000 years old and no evidence ... I touched on this in my previous replies. Can I ask how thoroughly you investigated this, have you gotten a reading of your chart? I ask because it will inform your question about "evidence". We can explore predictability in science and astrology after we address the 2nd point.
Yes because we all know that the driving force behind cultural progress is to accept everything one is told without question, particularly when it comes to defining one's personality traits and making predictions based on arbitrary position of stars in space relative to Earth that are no longer even accurate...
Astrology was invented as a means of accounting for individual traits and temperaments in pre-scientific times.
...Now that we know through empirical research that personality is a product of genetics and environmental influences, and that a person's behaviours are best predicted by their past behaviours.
There really is no more need for the irrational and illogical field of astrology, so why should we not use the modern science of psychology, which reflects our best current understanding of personality and behaviours?...
...It is backed up by volumes and volumes of empirical peer-reviewed research where astrological claims fail.
Psychology can even account for the inherent cognitive bias we have known as the Barnum effect that explain why astrology has been popular for so long.
@jessiessica One shouldn't "accept everything one is told with out question", however this doesn't mean knowledge from the past is necessarily false. There are many astrologers who use accurate positioning of planets relative to the earth. The model that planets influence individuals is one functional explanation which doesn't necessarily contradict modern empiricism. The Barnum effect accounts for cold reading, but the question is do all astrologers make cold readings?
The Barnum effect and cold reading are not the same thing. In order to cold read, one must be in direct contact with the person they are reading so that they can gradually obtain more and more information, allowing them to make more specific statements. Sure they might start with Barnum statements, but that does not mean that the Barnum effect cannot be used in the absence of cold reading, and it frequently is by Astrologers.
...for example, I could say "you are somewhat introverted, but at times you can be extroverted". That is a Barnum statement in that it is extremely general (most people lie between introversion and extroversion rather than on the extremes), and yet people have a well-documented cognitive bias that they tend to believe that that statements such as this apply uniquely to them.
@jessiessica I never said the "Barnum effect" and "cold reading" are the same thing. Second I didn't address "the benefits of astrology over modern psychology" because it has nothing to do with the debate I was having.
No they aren't the same, but you implied that Barnum statements are merely a part of cold reading, which they aren't, as they can be made in the absence of cold reading.
And yes, psychology it is very relevant, as modern psychology reflects our best understanding of our abilities to profile personality and predict behaviours, while astrology cannot be shown to reliably achieve either of these things despite it claims.
It's as though you aren't even reading my replies.
@jessiessica I don't know what you're reading, there is no implication by me "that Barnum statements are merely a part of cold reading". Next, You asked "how is astrology superior to modern psychology". To you astrology is fictitious like Aqua-man. To ask me who can swim faster Aqua-man or Michael Phelps is a bit silly don't you think?
"The Barnum effect accounts for cold reading, but the question is do all astrologers make cold readings? "
It's not fictitious. Astrologers do exist, I just don't see any evidence that they can deliver what they claim.
If anyone can provide me with evidence that astrology is better at determining personality than modern psychology, or at least better than chance, then I would gladly listen.
@jessiessica How is that a dismissal of the Barnum effect?
Of course "Astrologers do exist". To you their analysis is a fiction not they themselves. Then you ask me to compare what you believe to be a fiction to what you believe to be non-fiction, don't you think that is utterly silly?
It's dismissal because you are not acknowledging that astrological readings can easily be accounted for by a well-documented cognitive bias.
No I don't think that astrologers' analyses are fictitious either. I just know that they haven't provided any empirical evidence for their claims, despite their hypotheses being easily testable...
...So you're saying I can't ask for evidence of something just because I don't believe in it? My belief is neither here nor there. If it's testable, then I say test it. If the test doesn't show any evidence that they are delivering what they claim, then I think it's quite reasonable to say why not?
@jessiessica So are you saying all "astrological readings can easily be accounted for by a well-documented cognitive bias", If you say this then I can't accept it because there is no basis for this, unless you can prove it to me. But for you to say I'm not "acknowledging" the Barnum effect shows you haven't understood my writing.
One should always seek evidence and I never implied otherwise.
I should have elaborated and said that the high accuracy ratings given for astrological readings can easily be accounted for by a well documented bias.
There is plenty of basis for this. Try the classic experiment by Bertram Forer in 1948 where his subjects were told they were to be given a personality test. When given their results, they were asked to rate how accurate the statements are, they all rated very highly indeed (average 4.26 out of 5)...
...It turns out the "personality test results" were in fact randomly selected clippings taken from a newspaper astrology column. And this is merely the tip of the iceberg. Hundreds of studies in peer-reviewed psychological journals have established that this cognitive bias: that we tend to think that general statements such as those perpetrated by astrologers that are supposedly tailored specifically for us indeed apply uniquely to us...
...when in fact they are so general that they could apply to anyone.
So I'd say there's slightly more than "no basis" for my statement". Now what basis is there that astrologers are delivering what they claim to be? Does the burden of proof not lie with them? After all, do extraordinary claims not require extraordinary evidence?
@jessiessica First the practice of identifying personality traits in astrology is ancillary to predictions in fact the Vedic system which is mainly predictive hardly does it at all - consequently rendering your argument pointless. Second I don't know why you are asking me "Now what basis is there that astrologers are delivering what they claim to be" when I've never taken up such a position.
I'm not necessarily demanding the question of you, but it's a question that needs to be begged and repeatedly fails to be delivered by the astrology industry.
And it certainly doesn't render my argument pointless. Do you see me specifically adressing the vedic system? Despite the large predictive role of astrology, the ability to accurately profile personalities remains one of the principle claims of many astrologers and cannot simply be ignored.
@jessiessica "... it's a question that needs to be begged and repeatedly fails to be delivered by the astrology industry" again is NOT our debate. Second by saying "astrology" as opposed to western astrology you have included all practices of astrology including "Vedic". Next, by showing a particular flaw in one subset of astrology (i.e. Western Astrology) doesn't render all subsets flawed. Thus making your argument pointless.
And showing that one particular subset of astrology ("Vedic") is not subject to my claims doesn't render my whole argument flawed.
Thus rendering your own argument pointless.
Western astrology is no small subset. It makes a lucrative living off the pockets of the gullible. If I were to rephrase and say that I am directing my arguments specifically at Western astrology, would that satisfy you? Or would you prefer to continue fixatively dancing around words?
@jessiessica "... doesn't render my whole argument flawed." Sure it does, when you made the statement "astrological readings can easily be accounted for by a well-documented cognitive bias" you are speaking for astrology in general. If you rephrased the question and directed the "argument specifically at western astrology" then you are changing the debate.
@jessiessica Yes, evidence? An astrological session that changes lives, without psychotherapy to keep one stuck? I'd be glad to do this, cold. I do not know who you are, which is fine too. Provide me with one request, your correct birth information, including time and place of birth. Thats it. I'll send you a brief analysis, nothing fancy, just truth based on your energy field. You see, this one word covers everything in life, and it did arrive, when you did. I call it, gods image!
I see you are an "energy consultant" by trade so perhaps you can explain to me what you mean by my "energy field"?
Do you mean the rate at which my body absorbs energy from the fats, proteins, and carbohydrates that make up my food in order to fuel my organs and cells, before being converted into heat?
@jessiessica , To answer your Q, Medical Astrology is very serious system OF astrology. It takes years to this, and there are Doctors that have learned the system to enhance their practice. . Yes, medical astrology shows every illness that arrives, peaks...and yes..goes away. Baby's arriving in, the mothers body must be ready at the same moment. No accidents but very few people realize medical astrology works effectively. Energy field is simply a phrase based on seeing it in the chart.
"Energy field is simply a phrase based on seeing it in the chart. "
You do realise that the word "energy" is not a term science intended to be taken loosely to have whatever meaning you impose upon it. Energy is defined as the capacity to perform work, something that can be measured directly without any need for an astrological chart.
@jessiessica EVERYTHING contains energy. When I speak to a client, THE CLIENT understands what I am referring to. Your definition of 'energy' wants to argue a mute point with me. It would serve you to argue with someone who chooses to continue. It would also serve you to stay grounded with what you've been taught, instead of confusing bullshit with bullshit.
Yes, everything does contain energy, but that does not mean that energy is whatever you take it to mean. You still have not satisfactorily explained what an "energy field" is. Is it a physical thing?
See, I have been taught that energy is the capacity to do work. Not an aura. Not a floating ball of metaphysical light. And certainly not the process by which a person gets sick, or gets better.
Oh, and if medical astrology, as you say, shows EVERY illness that arrives, peaks and goes away, then why have no astrologers won the nobel prize for medicine? Surely something that can predict illness in individuals with a 100% success rate would be accepted as a marvel of modern science! Could you please refer me to the peer-reviewed scientific journal that confirmed this fact of yours?
@jessiessica After reading a few replys from you here, I thought you were genuine, but I see that you are not. People who devote time to helping others, do so with love. Those who have been bestowed with the gift of healing, do so, also, w/love. You may be a gift to some, but you certainly are no present. What is your point and what do you have to contribute here, other than hiding behind a userid, argueing with those that care? done here
So I'll take that to mean that none of your claims have been backed up by reliable studies published in reputable journals?
What do I have to contribute here? This is a video about whether there is any truth to astrology or not. That is what I am discussing, from a skeptical viewpoint. At least I am not resorting to personal attacks of character.
I think the only way to really test the validity of astrology for your self is to find a reputable astrology and test the consistency of predictions over a long period of time. After all who can match up your experience to predictions better then you. There are experiments out there but they are riddled with errors. To pass judgement without proceeding in this manor I think just makes you a major tool for the skeptics, sorry to say.
So what did Richard actually prove in the video? I must have missed that. Neither Milton nor Richard were able to get their point across effectively due to time. I hope people don't see this as proof that astrology doesn't work. Astrology is much more complex then what is put across there (not to say it is 'true'). I would be curious to see a some indepth study by the skeptics
ah good richard, so how does what you say (i'm going by the video) make astrology not true. You've provided another explanation, but where is the proof?
You should familiarise yourself with the concept burden of proof. Its not up to Richard (or any other skeptic) to prove astrology is not true. Its up to the astrologers to prove that it is true. If I claim I can fly like superman, is it up to you to prove I cant, or is it up to me to prove I can? Its no different with the claims of astrology & such like: burden of proof lies with the one making the extraordinary claim.
Thers a difference between having an open mind & being credulous. Having an open mind does not mean believing in something despite lack of evidence. It always makes me laugh when believers accuse non believers of being closed minded simply because they disagree with them. Thats not a closed mind at all, its simply holding a different position on an issue.
@chrisbellydance You have no clue what "open mind" means. That has to be one of the most abused terms out there. You demonstrated that, very ironically I might add, in less than a sentence. "Shut up and open his mind". Really? Is that how you practice keeping an open mind? Telling people to shut up? Priceless.
@chrisbellydance What is Astrology? Well, Astrology is what helps you know who's a fool. All you have to do is ask, do you believe in Astrology? As simple as that. Wonderful tool.
@chrisbellydance Skeptics have their minds open all the time. They are willing to believe any idea they are given as long as it has been proven and as long as the idea or concept has supporting evidence. Your definition of "Opening your mind" is obviously different to everyone else s definition because by telling him to shut up you are effectively closing YOUR mind to HIS ideas, therefore YOU sir are an idiot.
Oh, I agree. Big fans of those two, among numerous others. That's why I think the on-air challenge should always predict that outcome. They should have Richard back 1 week later whether the astrologer turns up or not. If he doesn't it means Richard has better predictive skills than a purported psychic and we can close the file on this clown.
Well handled, Mr. Saunders! Good luck holding Milton to the challenged he accepted. No matter how openly performed the test is proposed i worry (predict?) he'll do his best to avoid it, as did Sylvia Browne to Randi. I look forward to however this unfolds.
On a related note,I've always wondered: are there any creationists in Australia? It would be a rather tough job, since the whole continent is one huge evolution museum!
"Lives in the past" - actually, Richard Saunders is one of the more technically-proficient and highly-skilled internet users that I know. Looking forward to seeing Milton take up that challenge that he clearly accepted on national TV! :D
"...or who the hell Martin is..." - check out Martin's new book! His name is Dr Martin Bridgstock and his book 'Beyond Belief' is now on Amazon. :)
@Erickaf Yeah its way complicated, almost as complicated as the ideas of 6 solids
shandcunt 1 month ago
What can you say faster? Bullshit? Or Rubbish?
MrOttopants 1 month ago
I've seen this before but come back to watch sometimes. It's comforting. That twit got so utterly owned AND made a fool of himself. It does not conclusively prove anything about astrology but it sure as hell does about this bozo.
newcoyote 4 months ago
Milton Black: "It's not a mundane science.....It's an art."
Yes Milton. Astrology is not a science.
DrIdaho 5 months ago
Astrology is too vague and generalised - It is just another form of cold reading - Has to apply to many. Rubbish :-)
linlinro2012 9 months ago 2
astrology is way too complicated to be explained in 6 minutes!
Erickaf 10 months ago
@Erickaf I can explain it in 6 seconds. 'It does not work."
skepticzonepodcast 10 months ago 12
@skepticzonepodcast well i didnt' say it doesnt' work i just said its complicated.
Erickaf 10 months ago
This is so much fun. Now that they found out that horoscopes where wrong, based on the universe. So its not accurate.
HASLUM 1 year ago
Brilliant, Richard. Just brilliant.
vanadamme 1 year ago
The problem is that the public needs to be educated on what is 'POP' and what is 'Proper Astrology', society's perception of fate is an image of a grand puppeteer who is out to get us all, how very wrong this is. The very essence of astrology is that we are all in this together, humans are a part of the universe as are the stars.
CosmicArdency 1 year ago
Instead of playing with words and not taking Astrology seriously at all, scientists should vigorously examine astrology, not leave the credibility of this
ancient ART to a mere 6:27 minutes, many scientists believe that it takes less than this amount of time to disprove astrology as the methods they use only involve the sun signs you find in the local paper. A true scientist would swallow his pride and actively assault this ART with great keen, no, instead immediate bias somehow disproves it.
CosmicArdency 1 year ago
@CosmicArdency Oh thats easy to tell, any time astrology does not bring an accurate prediction, it is the POP and not the proper astrology, with this classification, we will see proper astrology get it right EVERY time.
hjf3022 11 months ago
@hjf3022 I'm sorry are you being smart?
CosmicArdency 11 months ago
Truly, Both sciences came from the same place in time, many years ago. This video is not accurate. The astrological realms planetary cycles, were studied year after year in ancient days, starting with chauldren (sp) priests. These holy men tracked day and night planetary activity. Over time things evolved, astronomy and astrology had two seperate languages, then parted ways...though both serve a higher purpose to mankind.
Hearing this stuff, no ring of truth to it (intuitiion), none.
eveleen1111 1 year ago
@eveleen1111
I hope you are beeing ironic, you dont actually belive this huh?
jerzees 1 year ago
@jerzees of course I do (lol if you only knew the experiences that others have shown me)
eveleen1111 1 year ago
That was hilarious.
PrismaticRAYS 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Barnum effect: "the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people."
jessiessica 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Allow me to use my experience and expertise in astrology of over 33 years to help you unlock the potential of the stars and make the most of every day…
Just Email me your Date of Birth, Your Full Name, Time Of Birth and Place of Birth at mnak.nabeel@gmail.com and donate $ 1 to my Paypal Account using the donate button on my website page.As soon as I get $ 1 You get all your details
Just Visit nabeel-speaks(dot)blogspot(dot)com and got to Astrology service section
nabeel1988 1 year ago
@nabeel1988
How is it a donation if you won't send the details unless the $1 is paid. That is in violation of the very definition of a donation.
In addition, your profile says you are 21 so how is it that you have 33 years of experience and expertise in astrology? Have you been reincarnated?
jessiessica 1 year ago
very nicely done Richard!
godhead22 1 year ago
if u believe in astrology u might as well believe in pink unicorns and ufo abductions
TheRooDog123 1 year ago
So, was the test ever done? What happened with that?
WithTheDawn 2 years ago
Too funny. You can clearly see this twit get more and more flustered and shaky as he is called out, put on the spot and frankly made an utter fool of. Like a fish out of water. They just make this stuff up as they go and then lose it when they know the gig is up. Their could never admit it though. Their paycheck would blow away in the dust.
newcoyote 2 years ago
True the astrologer was getting a little flustered it seems but I hardly think any proof was presented by the skeptic. In the end when the astrologer was giving the reading how can one verify if it is accurate for all we know the skeptic could be denying it's truthfulness so as to win the argument. Honestly I don't know about you but I put no faith in skeptics to tell the truth just like anyone else in a debate.
kusali11 2 years ago
@kusali11 It isn't up to the skeptic to prove a claim is false. The one making the claim has the onus of proving it. Every time they fail miserably. Your suggestion of long term test is ridiculous because the claim does not come close to meeting standards of evidence or plausibility. It's not about passing judgment. That is a lame red herring. These frauds need to pony up something concrete. Over the ages so far it's been nothing but a joke. They're charlatans. Period.
newcoyote 2 years ago
Talk about red herrings, why bring up a skeptics role when clearly this skeptic is trying to disprove astrology. Heck I see nothing wrong in trying but his points are trivial at best. Second you say astrologers have "the onus of proving it". I agree with this 100% but I think they do prove to their clients which makes them coming back, or are you going to pass judgment that these people are fools? If they are not fools then don't you think saying "Every time they fail miserably" to be incorrect?
kusali11 2 years ago
@kusali11 What the hell kind of stupid argument is that? You are confusing the issue. The question is simply, is astrology true or false? Weighing the arguments and plausibility there does not seem to be much choice. It has nothing to do with whether the credulous keep at it. This dancing around is tiresome.
newcoyote 2 years ago
There is no confusion here, you claim that astrology is false and I wish to know why. So far you haven't provided a single reason. If you answer the questions I posed we can explore it together. All you do is make blanket statements about those who seek astrologers as "credulous" and how astrologers "just make this stuff up as they go" with no support for your claims. Can I ask have you ever gotten a reading from an astrologer and second do you know how a chart is even cast?
kusali11 2 years ago
Third you say "Your suggestion of long term test is ridiculous because the claim does not come close to meeting standards of evidence or plausibility. " Can i simply ask why do you need all this?
kusali11 2 years ago
@kusali11 To put it simply, because I care what's true.
newcoyote 2 years ago
@kusali11
Well it isnt the skeptics role to prove anything, the burden of proof lies on the astrologer who asserts that astrology is a legitimate and useful application.
If this guy is a leading 40 year astrologer/psychic in a big country like australia, then why are his abilities to demonstrate his talent so poor?
The problem is none of astrologies claims ever seem to withstand basic scrutiny or can be differentiated from trickery used by mentalists and magicians.
That is the issue.
digitised 2 years ago
See this is what I mean by so called "skeptics" like your self. Just as dogmatic as the church was to Galileo. Not saying this astrologer is Galileo but what support do you have that this guy gave a poor reading? One can hardly gather anything from this short debate. Second read what I wrote before sending a reply, I already addressed your first point about the "skeptics role" in my previous chat with newcoyote.
kusali11 1 year ago
@kusali11
i dont expect him to prove astrology in this interview so please refrain from claiming that i am bias against him for not giving him a chance.
Astrology has been practised for over 2000 years, but there has never been any demonstrable proof given which shows it to actually work.
So if he is a leading astrologer where is his evidence? Why can a scientist prove predictive power of atoms, evolution, gravity etc, but an astrologer not predict the future with any accuracy?
digitised 1 year ago
I don't want to nit pick but you did ask "why are his abilities to demonstrate his talents so poor" so it's pretty hard to say you weren't biased.
Your 2nd point about it being 2000 years old and no evidence ... I touched on this in my previous replies. Can I ask how thoroughly you investigated this, have you gotten a reading of your chart? I ask because it will inform your question about "evidence". We can explore predictability in science and astrology after we address the 2nd point.
kusali11 1 year ago
@kusali11
You cannot compare the skepticism surrounding this astrologist to that surrounding Galileo.
Galileo was miles before his time, and this guy is miles behind.
jessiessica 1 year ago
@jessiessica perhaps skeptics are miles behind their time then. Modern skepticism has become so dogmatic.
kusali11 1 year ago
@kusali11
Yes because we all know that the driving force behind cultural progress is to accept everything one is told without question, particularly when it comes to defining one's personality traits and making predictions based on arbitrary position of stars in space relative to Earth that are no longer even accurate...
Astrology was invented as a means of accounting for individual traits and temperaments in pre-scientific times.
jessiessica 1 year ago
@kusali11
...Now that we know through empirical research that personality is a product of genetics and environmental influences, and that a person's behaviours are best predicted by their past behaviours.
There really is no more need for the irrational and illogical field of astrology, so why should we not use the modern science of psychology, which reflects our best current understanding of personality and behaviours?...
jessiessica 1 year ago
@kusali11
...It is backed up by volumes and volumes of empirical peer-reviewed research where astrological claims fail.
Psychology can even account for the inherent cognitive bias we have known as the Barnum effect that explain why astrology has been popular for so long.
jessiessica 1 year ago
@kusali11
So I guess my question to you is how is astrology superior to modern psychology?
jessiessica 1 year ago
@jessiessica One shouldn't "accept everything one is told with out question", however this doesn't mean knowledge from the past is necessarily false. There are many astrologers who use accurate positioning of planets relative to the earth. The model that planets influence individuals is one functional explanation which doesn't necessarily contradict modern empiricism. The Barnum effect accounts for cold reading, but the question is do all astrologers make cold readings?
kusali11 1 year ago
@kusali11
"One shouldn't "accept everything one is told with out question", however this doesn't mean knowledge from the past is necessarily false."
I'm not sure how you got from a to b, but I never implied that.
"The model that planets influence individuals is one functional explanation which doesn't necessarily contradict modern empiricism."
You are right. It is for this reason that we are able to test the hypotheses of astrology empirically yet somehow they never hold.
jessiessica 1 year ago
@kusali11
The Barnum effect and cold reading are not the same thing. In order to cold read, one must be in direct contact with the person they are reading so that they can gradually obtain more and more information, allowing them to make more specific statements. Sure they might start with Barnum statements, but that does not mean that the Barnum effect cannot be used in the absence of cold reading, and it frequently is by Astrologers.
jessiessica 1 year ago
@kusali11
...for example, I could say "you are somewhat introverted, but at times you can be extroverted". That is a Barnum statement in that it is extremely general (most people lie between introversion and extroversion rather than on the extremes), and yet people have a well-documented cognitive bias that they tend to believe that that statements such as this apply uniquely to them.
jessiessica 1 year ago
@kusali11
P.S. You never answered my question about the benefits of astrology over modern psychology.
jessiessica 1 year ago
@jessiessica I never said the "Barnum effect" and "cold reading" are the same thing. Second I didn't address "the benefits of astrology over modern psychology" because it has nothing to do with the debate I was having.
kusali11 1 year ago
@kusali11
No they aren't the same, but you implied that Barnum statements are merely a part of cold reading, which they aren't, as they can be made in the absence of cold reading.
And yes, psychology it is very relevant, as modern psychology reflects our best understanding of our abilities to profile personality and predict behaviours, while astrology cannot be shown to reliably achieve either of these things despite it claims.
It's as though you aren't even reading my replies.
jessiessica 1 year ago
@jessiessica I don't know what you're reading, there is no implication by me "that Barnum statements are merely a part of cold reading". Next, You asked "how is astrology superior to modern psychology". To you astrology is fictitious like Aqua-man. To ask me who can swim faster Aqua-man or Michael Phelps is a bit silly don't you think?
kusali11 1 year ago
@kusali11
You dismissed the Barnum effect with:
"The Barnum effect accounts for cold reading, but the question is do all astrologers make cold readings? "
It's not fictitious. Astrologers do exist, I just don't see any evidence that they can deliver what they claim.
If anyone can provide me with evidence that astrology is better at determining personality than modern psychology, or at least better than chance, then I would gladly listen.
jessiessica 1 year ago
@jessiessica How is that a dismissal of the Barnum effect?
Of course "Astrologers do exist". To you their analysis is a fiction not they themselves. Then you ask me to compare what you believe to be a fiction to what you believe to be non-fiction, don't you think that is utterly silly?
kusali11 1 year ago
@kusali11
It's dismissal because you are not acknowledging that astrological readings can easily be accounted for by a well-documented cognitive bias.
No I don't think that astrologers' analyses are fictitious either. I just know that they haven't provided any empirical evidence for their claims, despite their hypotheses being easily testable...
jessiessica 1 year ago
@kusali11
...So you're saying I can't ask for evidence of something just because I don't believe in it? My belief is neither here nor there. If it's testable, then I say test it. If the test doesn't show any evidence that they are delivering what they claim, then I think it's quite reasonable to say why not?
jessiessica 1 year ago
@jessiessica So are you saying all "astrological readings can easily be accounted for by a well-documented cognitive bias", If you say this then I can't accept it because there is no basis for this, unless you can prove it to me. But for you to say I'm not "acknowledging" the Barnum effect shows you haven't understood my writing.
One should always seek evidence and I never implied otherwise.
kusali11 1 year ago
@kusali11
I should have elaborated and said that the high accuracy ratings given for astrological readings can easily be accounted for by a well documented bias.
There is plenty of basis for this. Try the classic experiment by Bertram Forer in 1948 where his subjects were told they were to be given a personality test. When given their results, they were asked to rate how accurate the statements are, they all rated very highly indeed (average 4.26 out of 5)...
jessiessica 1 year ago
@kusali11
...It turns out the "personality test results" were in fact randomly selected clippings taken from a newspaper astrology column. And this is merely the tip of the iceberg. Hundreds of studies in peer-reviewed psychological journals have established that this cognitive bias: that we tend to think that general statements such as those perpetrated by astrologers that are supposedly tailored specifically for us indeed apply uniquely to us...
jessiessica 1 year ago
@kusali11
...when in fact they are so general that they could apply to anyone.
So I'd say there's slightly more than "no basis" for my statement". Now what basis is there that astrologers are delivering what they claim to be? Does the burden of proof not lie with them? After all, do extraordinary claims not require extraordinary evidence?
jessiessica 1 year ago
@jessiessica First the practice of identifying personality traits in astrology is ancillary to predictions in fact the Vedic system which is mainly predictive hardly does it at all - consequently rendering your argument pointless. Second I don't know why you are asking me "Now what basis is there that astrologers are delivering what they claim to be" when I've never taken up such a position.
kusali11 1 year ago
@kusali11
I'm not necessarily demanding the question of you, but it's a question that needs to be begged and repeatedly fails to be delivered by the astrology industry.
And it certainly doesn't render my argument pointless. Do you see me specifically adressing the vedic system? Despite the large predictive role of astrology, the ability to accurately profile personalities remains one of the principle claims of many astrologers and cannot simply be ignored.
jessiessica 1 year ago
@jessiessica "... it's a question that needs to be begged and repeatedly fails to be delivered by the astrology industry" again is NOT our debate. Second by saying "astrology" as opposed to western astrology you have included all practices of astrology including "Vedic". Next, by showing a particular flaw in one subset of astrology (i.e. Western Astrology) doesn't render all subsets flawed. Thus making your argument pointless.
kusali11 1 year ago
@kusali11
And showing that one particular subset of astrology ("Vedic") is not subject to my claims doesn't render my whole argument flawed.
Thus rendering your own argument pointless.
Western astrology is no small subset. It makes a lucrative living off the pockets of the gullible. If I were to rephrase and say that I am directing my arguments specifically at Western astrology, would that satisfy you? Or would you prefer to continue fixatively dancing around words?
jessiessica 1 year ago
@jessiessica "... doesn't render my whole argument flawed." Sure it does, when you made the statement "astrological readings can easily be accounted for by a well-documented cognitive bias" you are speaking for astrology in general. If you rephrased the question and directed the "argument specifically at western astrology" then you are changing the debate.
kusali11 1 year ago
@kusali11
So apparently I have so say in the course this debate takes?
I guess you would indeed prefer to dance around words and technicalities rather than actually contribute in any interesting way.
jessiessica 1 year ago
@jessiessica It's unfortunate that you see it as "dancing around words and technicalities" rather then it's true import.
kusali11 1 year ago
@kusali11
This coming from someone who started their argument with "I don't want to nit pick".
jessiessica 1 year ago
@jessiessica Don't be sore.
kusali11 1 year ago
@kusali11
Don't be patronising.
jessiessica 1 year ago
@jessiessica Yes, evidence? An astrological session that changes lives, without psychotherapy to keep one stuck? I'd be glad to do this, cold. I do not know who you are, which is fine too. Provide me with one request, your correct birth information, including time and place of birth. Thats it. I'll send you a brief analysis, nothing fancy, just truth based on your energy field. You see, this one word covers everything in life, and it did arrive, when you did. I call it, gods image!
eveleen1111 1 year ago
@eveleen1111
I see you are an "energy consultant" by trade so perhaps you can explain to me what you mean by my "energy field"?
Do you mean the rate at which my body absorbs energy from the fats, proteins, and carbohydrates that make up my food in order to fuel my organs and cells, before being converted into heat?
jessiessica 1 year ago
@jessiessica , To answer your Q, Medical Astrology is very serious system OF astrology. It takes years to this, and there are Doctors that have learned the system to enhance their practice. . Yes, medical astrology shows every illness that arrives, peaks...and yes..goes away. Baby's arriving in, the mothers body must be ready at the same moment. No accidents but very few people realize medical astrology works effectively. Energy field is simply a phrase based on seeing it in the chart.
eveleen1111 1 year ago
@eveleen1111
"Energy field is simply a phrase based on seeing it in the chart. "
You do realise that the word "energy" is not a term science intended to be taken loosely to have whatever meaning you impose upon it. Energy is defined as the capacity to perform work, something that can be measured directly without any need for an astrological chart.
jessiessica 1 year ago 2
@jessiessica EVERYTHING contains energy. When I speak to a client, THE CLIENT understands what I am referring to. Your definition of 'energy' wants to argue a mute point with me. It would serve you to argue with someone who chooses to continue. It would also serve you to stay grounded with what you've been taught, instead of confusing bullshit with bullshit.
eveleen1111 1 year ago
@eveleen1111
Yes, everything does contain energy, but that does not mean that energy is whatever you take it to mean. You still have not satisfactorily explained what an "energy field" is. Is it a physical thing?
See, I have been taught that energy is the capacity to do work. Not an aura. Not a floating ball of metaphysical light. And certainly not the process by which a person gets sick, or gets better.
jessiessica 1 year ago 2
@eveleen1111
Oh, and if medical astrology, as you say, shows EVERY illness that arrives, peaks and goes away, then why have no astrologers won the nobel prize for medicine? Surely something that can predict illness in individuals with a 100% success rate would be accepted as a marvel of modern science! Could you please refer me to the peer-reviewed scientific journal that confirmed this fact of yours?
jessiessica 1 year ago
@jessiessica After reading a few replys from you here, I thought you were genuine, but I see that you are not. People who devote time to helping others, do so with love. Those who have been bestowed with the gift of healing, do so, also, w/love. You may be a gift to some, but you certainly are no present. What is your point and what do you have to contribute here, other than hiding behind a userid, argueing with those that care? done here
eveleen1111 1 year ago
@eveleen1111
So I'll take that to mean that none of your claims have been backed up by reliable studies published in reputable journals?
What do I have to contribute here? This is a video about whether there is any truth to astrology or not. That is what I am discussing, from a skeptical viewpoint. At least I am not resorting to personal attacks of character.
jessiessica 1 year ago
I think the only way to really test the validity of astrology for your self is to find a reputable astrology and test the consistency of predictions over a long period of time. After all who can match up your experience to predictions better then you. There are experiments out there but they are riddled with errors. To pass judgement without proceeding in this manor I think just makes you a major tool for the skeptics, sorry to say.
kusali11 2 years ago
Where is the follow up?
3epitide 2 years ago
yeah i'll write the same somment twice :)
I'm not for or against either, just don't see any proof to say one is right and the other not
Schlezzle 2 years ago
So what did Richard actually prove in the video? I must have missed that. Neither Milton nor Richard were able to get their point across effectively due to time. I hope people don't see this as proof that astrology doesn't work. Astrology is much more complex then what is put across there (not to say it is 'true'). I would be curious to see a some indepth study by the skeptics
Schlezzle 2 years ago
@Schlezzle Google "Geoffrey dean astrology"
skepticzonepodcast 2 years ago
@Schlezzle
Are you serious? Astrology has been thoroughly debunked at every corner.
Do you truly believe that you can tell someones personality by looking into Outer Space?
R0YB0T 1 year ago
I used to believe in that nonsense. I suppose power of auto-suggestion is powerful enough for person to pigeonholes himself into it.
vvtor 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That sceptic needs to shutup and open his mind, he was probably a nerd at school
chrisbellydance 2 years ago
.. and that makes astrology true how?
skepticzonepodcast 2 years ago 20
ah good richard, so how does what you say (i'm going by the video) make astrology not true. You've provided another explanation, but where is the proof?
Schlezzle 2 years ago
You should familiarise yourself with the concept burden of proof. Its not up to Richard (or any other skeptic) to prove astrology is not true. Its up to the astrologers to prove that it is true. If I claim I can fly like superman, is it up to you to prove I cant, or is it up to me to prove I can? Its no different with the claims of astrology & such like: burden of proof lies with the one making the extraordinary claim.
thenigotoffthebus 2 years ago
Yes Richard, and how does you're argument make astrology not true, you've provided an explanation, but where is the proof?
Schlezzle 2 years ago
@skepticzonepodcast
It'sthe flawless "oh yeah?" argument.
simonddavies 1 year ago
Thers a difference between having an open mind & being credulous. Having an open mind does not mean believing in something despite lack of evidence. It always makes me laugh when believers accuse non believers of being closed minded simply because they disagree with them. Thats not a closed mind at all, its simply holding a different position on an issue.
thenigotoffthebus 2 years ago
@chrisbellydance You have no clue what "open mind" means. That has to be one of the most abused terms out there. You demonstrated that, very ironically I might add, in less than a sentence. "Shut up and open his mind". Really? Is that how you practice keeping an open mind? Telling people to shut up? Priceless.
newcoyote 1 year ago
@chrisbellydance What is Astrology? Well, Astrology is what helps you know who's a fool. All you have to do is ask, do you believe in Astrology? As simple as that. Wonderful tool.
atwozwozix 1 year ago
@chrisbellydance Skeptics have their minds open all the time. They are willing to believe any idea they are given as long as it has been proven and as long as the idea or concept has supporting evidence. Your definition of "Opening your mind" is obviously different to everyone else s definition because by telling him to shut up you are effectively closing YOUR mind to HIS ideas, therefore YOU sir are an idiot.
MegaDaveo1 1 year ago 2
@MegaDaveo1 Very well put
linlinro2012 9 months ago
wow, great smackdown. was that quaver in his voice nerves?
gfunkusarelius 2 years ago
@gfunkusarelius No, I don't think Milton was at all under an attack of nerves.
skepticzonepodcast 2 years ago
I cant wait for that challenge!!!! NIce....
papaesceptico 2 years ago
"There's a sucker born every minute."
The astrologers' motto.
bfderef 2 years ago 10
Don't forget the rest of that motto...."and two to fleece him" ;)
Fromanttodugong 2 years ago
@bfderef yup, and they become unlearned skeptics.
CDanielzSpecialist 2 years ago
Delicious. Absolutely DELICIOUS.
puppetless 2 years ago
pretty sure this "pysychic" guy sounds like will ferrel impersonating harry carey! lol
336Torana 2 years ago
HEY!
DeepSpaceBeans 2 years ago
hghhey... thats whahh they call meh whiskazz..
336Torana 2 years ago
hahaha Richard you are awesome!
nhojmabon 2 years ago
Good stuff :)
yngvefoshaug 2 years ago
Just like a Saggitarian to be questioning things...
hugiesrox 2 years ago
ahaha richard is awesome
getonitman20 2 years ago
yes, a member of a skeptic club is inquisitiva and looks for answers. Genius!
nefarious09 2 years ago 2
bahahahaha
todoke 2 years ago
Curious to see if he follows through on the challenge or if he's taking his bat and ball and going home now that he's gotten his free on air plug.
554466551 2 years ago 3
They never follow through. Just ask James Randi or Steven Novella.
Fragenzeichenplatte 2 years ago
Oh, I agree. Big fans of those two, among numerous others. That's why I think the on-air challenge should always predict that outcome. They should have Richard back 1 week later whether the astrologer turns up or not. If he doesn't it means Richard has better predictive skills than a purported psychic and we can close the file on this clown.
554466551 2 years ago
That would be nice but the psychics probably are going to use some lame excuse:
"The energy flow isn't right"
"I can't read because the skeptic's negative aura prevents me."
"I don't have to prove my talent to anyone."
Fragenzeichenplatte 2 years ago 3
Hey, I have the same birthday as Richard Saunders. WE MUST HAVE THE SAME PERSONALITY.
ryttu3k 2 years ago 5
You're a dead-set legend too?
554466551 2 years ago
That was actually very funny, and he was kind, that astrologer was on the ground but he didn't push too much.
QueueBionique 2 years ago 2
Worst warm reading ever!!!
TheFluffyDuck 2 years ago 3
Excellent slap-down of a slimy scamming charlatan!
MichaelKingsfordGray 2 years ago 8
Great job Richard!
jmm078 2 years ago
Beautiful... just... beautiful. Carl Sagan would've been proud!
TVgoggles 2 years ago 9
Nailed him! lol
boojum402 2 years ago
I laughed out loud when Richard asked him how he knew the time he was born when he was expecting someone else into the studio.. Look here! Scorpio!
What a performance! As they say PWND!
woodpigeon01 2 years ago 3
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH I love it
flavioateo 2 years ago
Well handled, Mr. Saunders! Good luck holding Milton to the challenged he accepted. No matter how openly performed the test is proposed i worry (predict?) he'll do his best to avoid it, as did Sylvia Browne to Randi. I look forward to however this unfolds.
SpunkMonkey 2 years ago
That was sweet oh and thumbs up to the newscaster for calling out the astrologer for his over general predictions
ELIT3squir3l 2 years ago
Great stuff!
On a related note,I've always wondered: are there any creationists in Australia? It would be a rather tough job, since the whole continent is one huge evolution museum!
Planetary0 2 years ago
Fantastic work, Richard!
DreadPirateMick 2 years ago
Brilliant. Richard once again speaks common sense and successfully challenges the world of woo. Let's see if Milton takes up Richard's challenge.
kensington25 2 years ago
Great stuff Richard
You kicked ass as usual!
Have added this vid to the Aussie BadPsychics site
BadPsychicsTV 2 years ago
Great job, Richard!
mjr256 2 years ago
"Lives in the past" - actually, Richard Saunders is one of the more technically-proficient and highly-skilled internet users that I know. Looking forward to seeing Milton take up that challenge that he clearly accepted on national TV! :D
"...or who the hell Martin is..." - check out Martin's new book! His name is Dr Martin Bridgstock and his book 'Beyond Belief' is now on Amazon. :)
podblackdotcom 2 years ago 2
Marvelous!
ryanbromsgrove 2 years ago
I feel a little sorry for the poor guy :(
holycatsbatman 2 years ago
Comment removed
mcnairium 2 years ago
BTW. I was in fact not a trouble maker at school.
skepticzonepodcast 2 years ago
You're such a sweet fellow, you would have been good! :)
podblackdotcom 2 years ago
Why does the interview act such a fool? He should know what's going on. It wasn't hard to follow.
wandafig 2 years ago
He stuffed up knowing your birth time .
That went well , good one .
grenangle 2 years ago
It's a Gish-reversal!
Richard threw so many facts at Milton that he couldn't possibly refute them all.
cryptozoologist13 2 years ago
Well done again Richard. That video had me laughing out loud.
scottelane 2 years ago
Milton, the plural of 'ephemeris' is 'ephemerides' not 'ephemerises'. What else don't you know?
stevewado 2 years ago
40 years in the business and he can only cold read?
OMGSEASALT 2 years ago
You go Richard! Don't let plutoids' gravitational pull affect your judgment ;)
smarterthanthat 2 years ago
Wow. Good one RS. I larfed!
MrWQuark 2 years ago
Milton sure has the gift of the gab.
ozweblogs 2 years ago