Bogosity Ep. 1: Astrology (Addendum)

An addendum to "Astrology," covering Chadborne's comments about science, Astrology, and the Randi Challenge.

You can watch the whole episode starting with Part 1 here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rDRpyLkces

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• James
• Young
• Arthur
• Chadborne
• astrology
• horoscope
• zodiac
• debate
• science

[PlutoPowered]

So, I guess the challenge never took place....

[shanedk]

@PlutoPowered Nope.

[nyclear]

To get the latest figures you have to go by the same list of factors (not just medical mistakes beccause that is like saying all asian countries only sell x amount of cars because of what Kia sold last year, you have to add it ALL up not just some of it show WHO can convey a certain stance.) and add up the latest figures for 2009. When you add it up the same way you get 760k for today's figures.

[shanedk]

@nyclear The point is, you're NOT adding up the other side of the equation: number who die of heart attacks, cancer, automobile accidents, etc. You're adding the figures on one side but not the other; that's DISHONEST.

[nyclear]

I am asking you to add up all the american made cars and compare them to japanese cars here. That was presumptiive. Here is the article: The JOURNAL of the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) Vol 284, No 4, July 26th 2000

[shanedk]

@nyclear You still need to cite author, title, and page number(s).

[DZiemke]

I think most of us skeptics wouldn't care as soon as all Astrologists stop bilking people out of hard earned money OR by falsely claiming their readings are true and accurate. We all see what we want to see.. whether it's in astrology or the patterns appearing on my french toast at breakfast. But it's not "real".

[clarkster28]

lol sadly they never admit they are wrong. Man, are they ever stubborn. It's like their whole life depends on this.

[Ghenghy]

You sure have spent a lot of time and effort to establish that you are one of the biggest morons on Youtube! Hey what kind of snakes are in season at your church there in Lincolnton you twit!

[shanedk]

@nyclear JAMA is a medical journal. Just saying JAMA is NOT citing a source. You need to cite the article, with title, issue, and page numbers. You have not.

And you don't just "add up numbers," because that's LYING. It would be like me adding up all of the GM and Ford cars, comparing the number to Kia, and using it to say that the US made more cars than Asia.

[nyclear]

Jama is not the Internet. Read the AMA's own journal. If you want to trust WHO after what they just hid from the public regarding Baxter, go right ahead. Add the numbers up manually. Do the math. There you will find the truth. Or do I get warnings because you are stuck in one perspective as "truth" and cannot here an opposing opinion. I am referring you to a leading medical journal yet you want to boot me for lies? WHO is not adding up everything pertinent only 1 factor. That'd not valid

[nyclear]

It is just as bogus to call something bogus without proper research as vice versa by the way. This is my point. And it's not cardiovascular disease. You didn't even do your own inquiry before you said I lied. Again, ad up all deaths from people getting correct treatment and who dies from the treatment, malpractice deaths, hospital infections, pharmacy errors, etc. If you do the math yourself and not rely on an industry $the number exceeds cardiovascular deaths. Do the math. Read jama