[extropy-chat] against ID

[Damien Broderick]

At 03:47 PM 12/8/2005 -0500, gts wrote:

>>Astrology *doesn't predict anything*???
>
>No better than does random chance, unless you have evidence to the
>contrary.

Oh--you mean astrology doesn't make *accurate* or *correct* predictions 
(beyond those expected by sheer chance coincidence), not that it doesn't 
make predictions. But the test of a supposed discipline's status as a 
science isn't -- for Popper, at any rate -- the accuracy of its 
predictions, but the fact that they can be tested empirically, and *in 
principle* falsified. Hence, psychoanalysis is regarded by Popperian 
critical rationalists as a non science (everything and nothing is 
consistent in any given case with its doctrines), while Marxism is regarded 
as a science, but a falsified one.

If you wish to make a strong case against astrology, you need to support 
your claim that no astrological prediction has been warranted. I've already 
given the example of the Gauquelins' "Mars effect" as a quasi astrological 
prediction that appears to have passed the falsification test (although of 
course this is disputed by most sceptics, especially those who haven't 
looked into the matter). Do some googling on the CSICOP sTARBABY scandal.

Damien Broderick
[ not an astrologer ]