h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

"Abstract: Many astrologers attribute a successful birth-chart reading to what they call intuition or psychic ability, where the birth chart acts like a crystal ball. As in shamanism, they relate consciousness to a transcendent reality that, if true, might require a re-assessment of present biological theories of consciousness. In
Western countries roughly 1 person in 10,000 is practising or seriously studying astrology, so their total number is substantial. Many tests of astrologers have been made since the 1950s but only recently has a coherent review been possible. A large-scale test of persons born less than five minutes apart found no hint of the similarities predicted by astrology. Meta-analysis of more than forty con-trolled studies suggests that astrologers are unable to perform significantly better than chance even on the more basic tasks such as predicting extraversion. More specifically, astrologers who claim to use psychic ability perform no better
than those who do not. The possibility that astrology might be relevant to con-sciousness and psi is not denied, but such influences, if they exist in astrology, would seem to be very weak or very rare.

....Our concern in this article has been to measure the performance of astrology and astrologers. A large-scale test of time twins involving more than one hundred cognitive, behavioural, physical and other variables found no hint of support for the claims of astrology. Consequently, if astrologers could perform better than
chance, this might support their claim that reading specifics from birth charts depends on psychic ability and a transcendent reality related to consciousness. But tests incomparably more powerful than those available to the ancients have failed to find effect sizes beyond those due to non-astrological factors such as statistical artifacts and inferential biases. The possibility that astrology might be relevant to consciousness and psi is not denied, but if psychic or spirit influences exist in astrology, they would seem to be very weak or very rare. Support for psychic claims seems unlikely."

I am not criticising randi's investigations into astrology on the basis that it works, but on the basis that he doesn't actually have any credibility with any scientist I know.

Hearing that randi has proved something false is about as usefull as hearing that professor kevin warwick has discovered or demonstrated something in robotics, or that various odd medics have produced viable human clones with no abnormalities at all (but you can't see them).

any such poor quality research deserves all the c**p that can be shovelled onto it. if someone pulls out such dross in an attempt to support their arguament, the only thing that can be done is to shoot it down.

Note I am not claiming anything about astrology, just insisting that if someone else tries to, they at least understand what they are quoting and the quality of their souces.

If all you can say against Randi are these ad homs, then that is one more reason to believe him.

Randi's background is magic. He is an authority on charlatans, and charlatans is what he talks about. What's the problem?

I see astrology as similar to a religious belief.
Having been to a talk where an astrologer explained how they draw up charts for individuals & perhaps advise on a propitious time for certian activities, I can see how people who choose to take their advice will be more confident & relaxed about their decisions which are then more likely to have a successful outcome.
What strikes me as dangerous about any of these belief systems is when people claim to be compelled to perform actions which are harmful to other people, even if their conscience advises otherwise.

>>"the best equivelent to randi I can point to is the medic used as an expert witness in cot death cases in the uk"

WTF has Randi got to do with an incompetent and prejudiced expert-witness professor?

>>"he said to juries in some cases that it was one chance in millions, where the actual chance was more like 1 in 25."

*Technically*, the one chance in millions was referring to people picked out of the population at random (the odds of a random person having lost two children to SIDS. The 1 in 25 (if accurate) could only be referring to the chances of a second death, *given that one had already occurred*. Even if one took the view that there was no correlation between deaths, it would only be reasonable to compare the 1 in 25 with a single probability of one in 8000, not the one-in-millions probability.


Anyway, much of Randi's work is pointing out mundane ways that effects could be produced, frequently to counter assertions that the effects are produced by supernatural means.

Given that the fundamental implicit or explicit assumption in much of the world of psychic phenomena is that there is no explanation other than the paranormal, pointing out that there *is* another explanation seems to be extremely useful.

Whether the other explanation is deliberate trickery, or unintentional flaws in experimental design is not necessarily important when considering the usefulness of the other explanation.

It's *possible* that a one-time magician like Uri Geller really has become psychic, and is now able to do things by the application of his immense psychic powers that he was once easily able to do by simple sleight-of-hand, and which present-day magicians are capable of replicating, but it is useful to have the alternative viewpoint presented to allow people to make their own minds up.

>>"when a qualified scientist makes nitromanite, you get a useful high explosive. when someone using only the tools and methods of the scientist does the same thing"

For 'qualified scientist', insert 'competent chemist', and the statement may be more correct. I'm sure there are numerous 'qualified' people who would end up in pieces, and unqualified people who could read a set of instructions properly who would survive their experience.
If someone can use the tools and methods of science succesfully, then they are a scientist, whether qualified or not.

Astrology may well be seen by some as a religion and, like religion, requires its adherents to have faith. It is, however, not a science. There is no scientific (or any other) proof of ANY of the claims by its practicioners.

The only "real" things about Astrology are that there are stars, people make a lot of money making "predictions" from the stars, and that there are people who are gullible enough to believe that these "predictions" have any validity.

There is no scientific proof that this hokum works and plenty of evidence, scientific and otherwise, that it doesn't.

My prediction: A fool and his money are soon parted. Odds are better than chance that this prediction will come true.

sorry potholer, I assumed that we had people on this thread who would read it in context and use the word "qualified" as it is normally used, as one who knows what they are doing, rather than going for the much stricter (but less often used) interpretation of "possessing a professional qualification".

as someone who has seen too many "qualified" engineers who don't have any way to apply their knowledge to the real world, I have always been somewhat suspect of people shouting about how good their qualification is.

you quite rightly state that randi is a conjourer who looks for frauds. I have complete respect for houdini who was exactly this.

you ask what randi has to do with the professor.

both of them apply techniques well beyond their knowledge, with little practical experience and end up with answers which say more about the supposed expert than the case they are working on.

I am not even saying that randi is wrong in his conclusions, only that his methods are often so ropey they they don't give you any information which could be regarded as credible to remove some of the uncertainty.

He also makes the mistake of finding one way in which he could fake something, and then makes the bold and unjustified statement that the people he is investigating MUST also be using EXACTLY the same method.

Uri Geller is an extremely good example to use.

I make no claims as to the posibilities as to various abilities which are grouped under the heading of psionics or psychic powers.

however when someone goes out to lunch with the famous spoon bender, they expect him to bend a spoon. Even if he could do what is claimed, sometimes it would be easier just to bend it by mechanical force.

The conclusion randi's methods come up with is that because he has been caught once doing this EVERY case must be the same. this is patently nonsense.

This is the problem I have with randi. he uses methods he is not competent to use, comes to unjustified conclusions based on this faulty methodology, and then further inflates his claims well beyond what they woould justify even if he had used them correctly.

Randi is a by profession an unbeliever. however he is decidedly unprofessional in his methods to the point where it is better to ignore him completely if anyone else has a very small amount of data on the issue.

Returning to the original post .....

The survey seems to have performed a rather narrow definition for its subject group.

Firstly its decided that only tier 1 countries can provide the level of data it requires.

From its data it has then decided that only the USA displays a level of religous participation qualified as high - "the United States is the only prosperous first world nation to retain rates of religiosity otherwise limited to the second and third worlds (Bishop; PEW). Prosperous democracies where religiosity is low (which excludes the U.S.) are referred to below as secular developed democracies."

It then cites Japan as the most secular nation (followed by France ?!? and Scandinavia) This leads one to wondering about the actual questions asked - church attendance in Japan I would suggest is incredibly low, but currently ancester worship is seen as being a religous practise.

Frankly I would suggest this piece of "research" set out to prove a point then manipulated the data to get the result it wanted.

So comments like "the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard " need to taken in context - perhaps America's liberal gun laws may have an influence on this ?

Then we have comments like "Denmark is the only exception" which is then forgotten about. Why is Denmark the exception ?

Sorry, I must be exceptionally bored today.

>>"sorry potholer, I assumed that we had people on this thread who would read it in context and use the word "qualified" as it is normally used"

Thank you for your comments. In the context you used it, if all you meant was that people who know what they are doing are less likely to mess up than people who don't, it seems a sufficiently obvious point verging on tautology that I wonder why you bothered making it at all.
'Hold the front page - competent people are less likely to be incompetent than incompetent people'.

Regarding Randi, I don't see a problem with pointing out alternative explanations. What is the point of mystical powers that only enable someone to do things that other people can do without them?

If someone claimed to have supernatural powers enabling them to move from one place to another (or make food disappear) in a blacked-out room, most people would think "Some mystic *they* are - why don't they just walk (or eat)?"

I'd assume that the primary implicit or explicit reason for why people *should* believe in supernatural powers would be a lack of a credible natural explanation. If there is a natural explanation, it seems to be perfectly acceptable, if not actually highly important, for it to be put forward.

Fundamentally, there clearly *are* many frauds in the psychic business, some more harmful than others. Given the rewards likely to accrue to an actual psychic who could give a convincing demonstration even to knowledgable skeptics, one wonders why no claimed psychics seem able to prove themselves in controlled conditions.

>>"you ask what randi has to do with the professor.
both of them apply techniques well beyond their knowledge, with little practical experience"

I still think it was a very bad analogy, lacking any significant parallels, and picked for emotional effect.

What practical experience or knowledge is Randi lacking? Experience of being psychic? He's hardly a one-man-band, so in the case where specific knowledge might be useful, I suspect he has access to it.

Reading the JREF site, he does seem to try and be fair - pointing out when people who support him are making unsupportable conclusions, and he saves his greatest distaste for mediums and cure-hawkers who are preying on vulnerable people, for which I heartily applaud him.

>>"Even if he could do what is claimed, sometimes it would be easier just to bend it by mechanical force."

Well, there we have an intro to at least one of the two classic lines trotted out by fakes down the ages - "You *have* caught me cheating, but I'm psychic *and* honest the *rest* of the time", and/or "It's *harder* using psychic powers"

Someone might claim the ability to turn water into any drink they chose, but if I regularly saw them down the off-licence, I'd start to ask questions.
They *might* claim that it's easier to just buy alcohol due to the mental effort involved, but if psychic powers:
a) can only be used to do things other people could do anyway
b) take more effort
I'd be forced to wonder what *&^%ing use they are.

"Well, Mr 'ex'-magician Geller, if we ever want cutlery bent very slowly, and we've all lost the power in our hands, we won't hesitate to call in your amazing abilities, whether you're a cheat all the time, or just some of it."

>>"Randi is a by profession an unbeliever. however he is decidedly unprofessional in his methods to the point where it is better to ignore him completely if anyone else has a very small amount of data on the issue."

Does he regularly lie, discount possible explanations as impossible (or vice versa), make errors of science, misrepresent people, misremember events, or suchlike? Do you have examples you could share?
It'd seem to me to require significant evidence of bad faith to make me consider all points that someone made as untrustworthy, even if I disagreed with their intentions and/or conclusions.

One might consider an outright position that supernatural or paranormal phenomena don't exist, based merely on observation of the lack of reliable evidence, despite the seeming ease by which such evidence *could* be supplied if people wished, to be an overreaction of some extent.
However, I think it is one reasonable conclusion in the circumstances, and the undeniable presence of outright cheats in the fields of psychic phenomena.

If someone claimed to be have a machine that could do some amazing feat, but refused to let someone test it, the conclusion of most people would be that the claims were pretty suspect.
If thousands of people made similar kinds of claims, some were known to have cheated when giving demonstrations on their own terms, and no-one was prepared to submit their machines to proper examination, in the absence of any compelling alternative explanation for why they would *all* refuse to be tested, one is fairly safe in considering the likeliest possibility to be that they were all frauds until at least one of them shows otherwise, at which point one should be happy to change one's viewpoint from what it would be clear was at least an overgeneralisation.
I don't see why claims of paranormal abilities should be treated any differently to claims to own miraculous machinery.

The reason I chose the professor was because he was A high profile, well documented, recent case of someone making claims well outside his competence.

I see a lot of the stuff that randi specifically and his organisation scicop generally get up to as the same level of misunderstanding of the methods they then try and apply.

you ask what sort of mistakes they make. A few friends and myself found too many instances in a very short time of faulty reasoning being provided by scicop and just accepted uncritically.

As you can imagine, this left us slightly annoyed, so we looked to see how prevelent this was. We then went through as many reports by scicop as we could find, looking for 1 case where their data, extrapolations and other claims held up, and failed to find any that were even vaguely correct.

The type of mistakes which were made were all due to sloppy thought in one form or another. you had cases where conclusions were reached on little data, conclusions were states as true when the data didn't do much more than hint at it, some analyses of the data which were not applicable to those sorts of data sets, and endemic overstating of conclusions, ie this guy cheated, so they all must be cheats.

we were not that picky, we only wanted to find 1 valid case, but there were none. I know others who have done the same.

In general these faults are the same sort of mistakes as are made by the religious who do "christian science" to support the claims of the bible. they start with their beliefs, and use these to find out what the conclusions should be, and then look only for evidence which supports those conclusions.

they then perform superficial analysys on their data to confirm that it supports their conclusions.

note: I am not disparaging the religion whose followers call themselves "christian scientists", but people who are christians first, and then misunderstand the rules of science.

I think randi is actually sincere in his belief in the conclusions that he and scicop put out, but if you don't understand how to use the tools, it is very hard to spot that you are misusing them.

Houdini was a better example of this sort of thing, because even though he wanted to be a believer in spiritualism, he went there with an open mind and collected the data to form his conclusions, and then exposed the fakes when he found them.

you mention my refering to the term "qualified scientist" and say that you accept that if I replace it with "competent chemist" it is a resonable comment, but then when I pick you up for an unusually restrictive reading of the same text, you claim that I am just statind an obvious tautology.

We both know what I meant from the discussion around it, so lets stop picking up minor differences just for the sake of it. it doesn't get us anywhere.

I make no claims that "psychic powers" exist, only that his methods don't bring anything to the quest to narrow the uncertainty.

He might even be right that the things he opposes are all fake, but his evidence doesn't narrow the room for uncertainty to any significant degree.

One issue where he is indisputable right is that a good con man or conjourer can convince an innocent that stuff they do one way is actually being done in a different, more impressive way.

however the same criticism applies to scicop.

If you are going to set up as sceptics, you should be sceptics, not unbelievers, or believers.

Some of the subjects under investigation require relaxed environments to do the research, but they make no allowances for this, and instead try and get results in openly hostile circumstances.

It is like taking members of the general public of the street, telling them that they MUST cross this tight rope without falling off, or they will be publically ridiculed, and then as they try it, shouting in loud voices about how they can't do it, and are going to fall off, while shaking the tightrope.

It might make you feel better as an unbeliever, and you will probably get the results you want, but if someone actually finds someone who can tightrope walk, you are just left looking silly for "proving" that something couldn't happen not long before it did.

There have been many examples of credible scientists winding up with this problem when they don't fully document their assumptions, the most notable being the notable scientist who pronounced heavier than air flight imposible around the time of the right brothers.

when you are a lot more sloppy, you end up getting it wrong a lot more often, and scicop and randi are very sloppy.

I actualy commmend him for his taste in targets. they often deserve to be exposed, but it should be done properly.

Trying to get back to the main topic of the thread, in post 68 it was pointed out that a survey was making a mistake saying "the United States is the only prosperous first world nation to retain rates of religiosity".

I agree with most of the criticism of the survey, but they also make another very common mistake.

The US is actually 2 cultures sharing a common landmass.

First, You have the low pay, low skill, highly devout bible belt.
Second, the High skill, relatively high pay, cosmopolitan and mostly secular coastal cities.

They have different levels of religiousness, vote differently, and generally act like two seperate countries with a common set of laws and beliefs straining against their local sets of laws and beliefs.

I only have one religion, that which my Father set up, Inbibe (is that spelt right?) and enjoy... works for me...

Imbibe?

Personally I would rather imbibe alcohol than religion. the negative after effects don't tend to last as long, or harm other people as much.

of course it is possible to use both in a healthy way, you just don't see it as often when it is religion.

imbibe imbibe! imbige >erm imbibe still doesnt' lok right I thin I need kneed another drinkie

I said the 'qualified' statement might be more *correct* if you had used 'competent', not that it would have been worth making in the first place. By definition, a tautological statement *is* correct.

Thinking of numerous usages of 'qualified [person doing job]', *I* can't think of many where qualified would not be referring to qualifications, except in areas where qualifications didn't exist, or where one was talking about a very specific skill-set for a narrowly defined post. I guess it must be a case of variations in the usage of the English language between people.

>>"He might even be right that the things he opposes are all fake, but his evidence doesn't narrow the room for uncertainty to any significant degree."

I'd have thought that his primary goal was to *create* uncertainity in people who might otherwise be hoodwinked into believing a cheap trick could *only* be done by the use of mystical powers.

He doesn't *need* to prove that everyone is a fake, and given the number of hucksters springing up all the time, it wouldn't be possible for even an army of skeptics to do so.
All he needs to do is point out that there is no shortage of fakes, show that it is easy for people (for no fault of their own) to be taken in by fakes, and point out that no-one has so far been able to prove themselves non-fake, and leave people to make their own minds up.

If you give examples of what you don't like about his reasoning, I guess other people might be able to follow your thought processes. It may well be that you and all your scientist friends are correct, in which case sharing your sources may help others to agree with you.

However, as I said, if he has stated his information, his reasoning, and his conclusions, he has at least left you able to make up your own mind. Sometimes it's better to have a source of reasoning one doesn't quite trust, since it encourages people to think for themselves.

We keep hearing this from the atheist community, but there is no more evidence to support it than there is for any other expressions of partisan opinion. Despite all the bad things that have been done *in the name of* religion (or politics, or patriotism, or...), there was a time when someone who had done wrong, and been found out, would say "sorry". These days, they say "F**k off" instead. One role religion performs well is the explanation of personal responsibility, guilt and contrition.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Hmm. I met someone in the Bible Belt once. She was a lesbian, and I don't know if *she* was much of a believer, but her parents were, and they would not accept the fact that she was gay. They told her flat out that she was sinning if she ever had sex, and was rejecting God by her very sexuality.

I say she *was* a lesbian. She hasn't been cured, she starved herself to death because she was anorexic. Maybe if she'd told her parents to 'f**k off' she'd still be alive.

Religion is good for social cohesion/control, but it's based on fantasy and people can be moral enough without it.

<> P-C

Well, it does cause a lot of guilt. More seriously, how many people's lives are disfigured because of religion's attitude towards sexuality?

>>"We keep hearing this from the atheist community."

That specific quote, or even the general analogy? Really? I'm not sure I've heard it before. If I have it certainly hasn't stuck in my mind as particularly special.

>>"Despite all the bad things that have been done *in the name of* religion (or politics, or patriotism, or...), there was a time when someone who had done wrong, and been found out, would say "sorry". These days, they say "F**k off" instead."

That's a seriously sweeping generalisation. Some people used to say 'sorry', some didn't, some people still do, some don't.
Some people who apologise are genuinely sorry, some apologise for reasons of politeness, some out of pure self-interest. I imagine it was ever thus.

Between roughly which dates *was* the Golden Age of religion-fuelled personal responsibility?

you do keep hearing it from atheists, but for good reasons.

If you look at the behaviour of cults, they prey on the weak, encourage dependency on the group, and try an stamp out any type of original thought which even vaguely contradicts the doctrine of the cult, and often imposing extreme punishments for minor infractions.

If you look at the the behaviour of the extremist arms of organised religion the behaviour of their believers and it can be hard to tell the difference.

The spanish inquisition used to torture people to get information, and kill people using attrocious methods for relatively minor differences in dogma.

Numerous jewish extremist organisations in israel will happily kill palestinians with very little reason, and there are plenty of palestinians who are happy to return the favour.

In northern island you have sectarian violence between protestants and catholics, and in large parts of africa you have other types of sectarian violence.

Even if you exclude the real extremists, the catholic church hasn't got that much room for self congratulation.

They are after the elimination of poverty, but oppose every effective method of family planning. They also ban all forms of sexual release unless you are married, and then only in conventional marriages.

all of the main faiths are intollerent of sexual diversity, and of diverse sexual orientations, which are usually not a matter of choice.

They all are fairly intollerent of interfaith marriage, and those at the more liberal end of the spectrum on this issue try and apply extreme pressure to the parents to get the children raised in their faith, rather than the faith of the partner, or letting the children choose their own faith.

they all try very hard to indoctrinate children, or if they miss you then to catch you at your most vulnerable, after divorce or during bereavement.

all of the christian sects I am aware of have actively protected peadophile priests, often at the expense of the children in their next parish, and a number of them will also cover for priests who engage in adultry as well.

also, once they have got someone, they try their best to drag them in further, and resist attempts to become significantly less involved.

I am also not aware of any religious sect who does not indulge in banning and burning books.

Most of them actively encourage their believers to preferentially use businesses and entertainment available within the community, decreasing integration with their host communities.

a lot of them will also try evangelistic preaching at the smallest opportunity.

All of this behaviour would not look out of place in the behaviour of a cult, where they will happily condem it, but not when someone of rank in the faith is spotted to be behaving this way by someone outside it.

All of this is usually done in such a way as to reduce the self relience of the individual, and in such a way as to increase the dependency on the community.

To me this looks like a difference in intensity only, not a difference in kind.

Some believers can be reasonable, and I would defend their right to have their belief, as long as the grant me the right to not believe, or to believe differently.

too many of the won't accept a statement of non-belief, prefering to claim that the non-believer is realy a member if their church, only lapsed.

this is all before you consider all of the religious who are sunday best believers, who put on their sunday best suit, their sunday best morals, and their hypocracy, and then happily breach multiple commandments of their religion during the rest of the week.

also the level of intollerence usually has to be seen to be believed.

I will quite happily pass comment on any system of belief which preys on the weak, increases the amount of intollerence, and generally makes life harder for whole classes of individuals who don't fit with their beliefs, even when it is beyond their ability to do so.

You might say that all of this is done "in the name of religion", but if the leaders of organised religion don't speak out against these behaviours, then it has to be considered that they don't realy have a problem with them being done in their name.

P-C:

Denver Pose:

Religion *causes* guilt? Surely some sort of wrongdoing causes guilt? *Some* religions show an attitude toward sexuality which I believe to be wrong and harmful. But this, true as it is, has nothing to do with what I said.

P-C:

Potholer:

Hi Potholer!

Yes, it's a generalisation. What else could it be? I don't believe in rose-tinted spectacles, or a golden age of honesty. However, in the sixties, when I was growing up, if you'd done wrong, and you got caught out, you admitted it. You didn't continue to insist on your innocence. And those are generalisations too, of course.

Consider Profumo, who resigned immediately he was found out. President Bliar recently lied to us all about when the decision was made to invade Iraq, but that was just glossed over or ignored....

The Thatcher/Reagan generation do not operate like this. A recent newspaper article by Lynne Truss discussed the 'F-off generation', so I'm not alone in making this observation. I could still be wrong, though....

Xyroth:

I make no apologies on behalf of extremists of any sort. They aren't new, and they haven't changed, although they are (perhaps?) more numerous and influential than they have been in the past? My point is only to defend religion (in general) against one-sided criticism. Yes, religions have their bad points, and they have good points too. That is all I'm saying.

Extremists are another matter entirely, and I include religious, political and all other varieties of extremist in this. Extremism is (IMO) a significant threat to us all. But I do think it's wrong to blame religion (politics, football, nationalism,...) for the evils of extremism. In the end, *people* are responsible for any evil they may do.



The Catholic church recently *did* speak out against extremism, but the general reaction to this on h2g2 seemd (to me) to be negative, not positive....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"