James Randi - Psychic Investigator - Part 5 of 15

James Randi the master skeptic of Astrology, Psychic phonemena and New age ideas

Category:

Education

Tags:

• astrology
• tarot
• gentile
• paranormal
• ghost
• spiritual
• psychic
• new
• age
• spirtuality

[aegisgfx]

5 people are arrogant pricks who think the universe was put there just for them.

[boynamedsu18]

Like little lambs lining up to Randi's Slaughterhouse.

[licensedtolive]

@ebonmaskarade77 I think any person from any culture will start to get the gravity metaphor. Even electricity is a metaphor, because no one has ever actually seen an electron. Yet, Ohm's Law is reliable. That may be lacking in astrology, or maybe it isn't lacking, but Randi hasn't met a person who really understands those laws. Lots of people can screw in a lightbulb. That doesn't mean they are electronics engineers.

[licensedtolive]

@ebonmaskarade77 When you say "theory", it sounds like something we have no evidence for. But gravity is a theory, yet things continue to fall to earth. Music is a theory, yet we can say music exists. Getting back to Randi and Astrology, I think he's good at debunking, but not always so good at defining the effect he is debunking. For instance, he gives the impression of debunking astrology. but any falsifiable theory requires numerous repeated testing. That's the failure here.

[ebonmaskarade77]

@licensedtolive You think it is? Maybe you still aren't getting the metaphor... If someone has never been taught the theory of gravity, do you expect that they should just believe it's true when you say it exists? That idiotic. Believing extraordinary claims without evidence is idiotic.

[licensedtolive]

@ebonmaskarade77 Moon gravity is a local effect, and makes a good example in my argument. The effects of the moon's gravity changes according to lunar cycle, as you know. There isn't just lunar gravity, but gravity of all mass in the universe is really connected in subtle ways--even galaxies pull toward each other--and the combined net effect of all mass conceivably has some minute, varying effects on organic cycles. No reliable astrology models exist (I could be wrong).

[ebonmaskarade77]

@licensedtolive Ugh... no we can. The very foundation of scientific theory is presenting evidence specific to a theory. And the reason the big bang is a theory and not a fact is because even though it has evidence it's not fully understood (similar reason for gravity). You seem to misunderstand my standard of proof. I don't believe claims without evidence, and I can believe that something is likely even if it isn't fully proven as long as it has evidence.

[ebonmaskarade77]

@licensedtolive no because the tides are linked to the gravity of the moon. It's not supernatural. So no it is not rational to assume that astrology has any reality to it. Maybe it is rational to look for evidence that other astrological bodies do "something" to our planet, but to assume that astrology is the automatic go to source is irrational.

[licensedtolive]

@ebonmaskarade77 "any number of forces"...interesting. The flaw in your line of reasoning. Forces of which you aren't aware, can't measure but we know they are there. We can't no more reproduce the effects of the Big Bang than you are demanding that I reproduce the effects of astrology. Yet, there they are, big old Jupiter, little old Mercury, and a whole bunch of galaxies that are each different from the other.

[licensedtolive]

@ebonmaskarade77 Gravity as a placeholder, but so what? You're saying the phenomenon doesn't exist? That the apple falling toward earth isn't real because gravity is only a metaphor for processes we don't really understand? As for individuals knowledgeable about astrology, if they don't exist, does that prove astrological effects don't exist? Would you say that tides and crops correlate with lunar phases? Then, isn't that rationale extendible to the rest of the galaxy?

[ebonmaskarade77]

@licensedtolive If you wanna win, just give me an accredited expert who could have shown randi up if given the opportunity. If you can't give me that then where's the bias? If every astrologer is faulty then the idea of astrology is faulty. If nearly every astrologer is faulty then he's pulling from the majority, which isn't as bias as bringing in the fringe. If he was grabbing the fringes the then real articles are awfully soft spoken.