Well, 23Skidoo, you're confusing me. You seem to be confusing a scientific world view with materialism, which is completely unfair. There is nothing inherently unscientific about a non-materialist world view. Scientists do tend to be materialists because so far no phenomena have been discovered which fit a non-materialist explanation better than a materialist one.
Second, you seem to be mocking the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, which would make you something of a determinist, but that doesn't really fit your claim that astrology is untestable. A determinist believes that if only we had all the facts, we'd know what was going to happen. There's no reason why a determinist astrologer couldn't include astrology in his facts, and test his theories about astrology same as anything else.
Next, for someone who claims to be unscientific, you make an awful lot of scientific claims, most notably that a good astrologer can pick out the serial killers from a random stack of natal charts, if not 100% of the time, much more often than would be expected by chance. Presumably by comparing enough of these charts we could figure out what the astrologer is looking at, no?
Ideally we want to say something like "70% of all known ripper-killers have some thing in their chart, while only 2% of all people have that thing." Of course it could be several different things, in which case the more of these warning signs found in a given chart, the more likely it is that the person will turn out to be a killer.
So I suggest you start by making natal charts for a large number of known killers, and then hypothesize that (some thing) will be in their charts, then look and see if it's there more often than you expect. But watch out for the sharpshooter's fallacy, which is where you just test things until you find a match. (For example, if you determine that the chance of finding conjunction X in every killer's chart is 1 in 1000, but test 1000 conjunctions, you will probably find a match.)
Second, you seem to be mocking the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, which would make you something of a determinist, but that doesn't really fit your claim that astrology is untestable. A determinist believes that if only we had all the facts, we'd know what was going to happen. There's no reason why a determinist astrologer couldn't include astrology in his facts, and test his theories about astrology same as anything else.
Next, for someone who claims to be unscientific, you make an awful lot of scientific claims, most notably that a good astrologer can pick out the serial killers from a random stack of natal charts, if not 100% of the time, much more often than would be expected by chance. Presumably by comparing enough of these charts we could figure out what the astrologer is looking at, no?
Ideally we want to say something like "70% of all known ripper-killers have some thing in their chart, while only 2% of all people have that thing." Of course it could be several different things, in which case the more of these warning signs found in a given chart, the more likely it is that the person will turn out to be a killer.
So I suggest you start by making natal charts for a large number of known killers, and then hypothesize that (some thing) will be in their charts, then look and see if it's there more often than you expect. But watch out for the sharpshooter's fallacy, which is where you just test things until you find a match. (For example, if you determine that the chance of finding conjunction X in every killer's chart is 1 in 1000, but test 1000 conjunctions, you will probably find a match.)
Comment