As I said, "You had to be there"; you did not see the survey, or observe the anolysis.
In your counter-example, you attempt a refutation by comparing a sample-of-one with a sample of 17 / 18. There is a BIG difference. And strength-of-findings DOES matter, if all of the other parameters are sound.
The point I was trying to make with my example is that strength of finding tells you what the result is, but it's the size of the sample that tells you how reliable the result is. Your experiment showed that there is a 76% chance that some people are strongly affected by biorythm while others aren't affected at all and a 24% chance that your results are irrelevant. It doesn't really prove anything, though it does indicate that further testing with an increased sample would probably be worth doing and might give some interesting results.
You contradict yourself; re: your example of the compass, and electromagnetism.
Could you please clarify at which point exactly I contradicted myself? I'm afraid it's not quite clear to me from your post.
In, say, 970 A.D., IF Viking navigators used lodestones, they MAY have associated it with paranormal influence.
But there WERE "men of science", even back then. If you attempted to convince one of them that the Earth was round, and had a magnetic field, and that's how compasses worked, he probably wouldn't believe you.
If he were a VIKING "man of science" (if they existed; doubtful), he would have probably chopped your head off as soon as you said "Well, to start with, the world is NOT flat, it is round like a ball..."
There is no telling WHAT "men of science" said back then, if asked how compasses worked. There were probably dozens of "scientific explanations", each sounding reasonable AT THE TIME and IN CONTEXT.
The medieval "man of science" (the non-Viking one) might say to the "Earth is round and has a magnetic field, but we have no way of PROVING the earth is round and we have no way of SHOWING the magnetic field", with "If we can't see or detect it, how do you know it's there?"
I am under the impression that we understand the phrase "man of sience" in different ways and apologize for any confusion this might have caused. To me a man or woman of science is someone who trusts knowledge gained through the scientific method and distrusts knowledge not gained through the scientific method.
The scientific method is acctually pretty simple. First you observe a phenomenon. Then you devise a hypothesis that explains the phenomenon. After that you use the hypothesis to make a prediction and then you test whether the prediction came true. If it didn't the hypothesis is rubish and you need to devise a new one. If it did come true on the other hand the hypothesis becomes a theory. However, scientific theories are never final and need to be continiously tested. That is why even though Einstein's theory of general relativity is generally acepted as correct by the scientific community and has been so for decades, people are still making all sorts of experiments to test it.
If that sounds to "scientish" for some people, here is an Oblivion related example of the scientific method at work:
You are playing a mage, you recently bought a Shock Damage spell that has the same magnitude as your Fire and Frost spells, and you enter several Oblivion gates where you fight against many Daedra. You notice that fighting Daedra with a Shock spell seems to be easier than fighting them with Frost spells. This is the phenomenon. You consider the possibility that Daedra might have a Weakness to Shock. This is the hypothesis. If Daedra are vulnerable to shock this would mean that you need less spells of the same magnitude to kill them if you use Shock instead of Frost. This is the prediction. So you start counting how many spells it takes to kill Daedra with Shock and how many spells it takes to kill them with Frost. This is the experiment. After killing many Daedra with both Shock and Frost you find that indeed you have to use less Shock spells than Frost spells in order to kill daedra. This means the experiment confirmed your hypothesis and it is now a theory.
So if the Viking was a man of science he would try to find a way to test my hypothesis that the Earth is round rather than chop off my head.
If there are people that say that astrology is meaningful, and assuming they are not ALL delusional, then perhaps something IS responsible. It need not be positions of constellations or extraterrestrial bodies DIRECTLY... but you could say that "something IS *detected*". Just as a compass indirectly indicates a geomagnetic field.
I'll assume that by "assuming they are not ALL delusional" you meant pathological delusion and not just plain old false belief.
I acctually agree with your reasoning here. If a lot of people believe it and have experiences that confirm their beliefs there might be something to it. So what you need to do next is make an experiment to see if the astrology hypothesis gives any good predictions. And that's where astrology fails. To quote the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology:
Studies have repeatedly failed to demonstrate statistically significant relationships between astrological predictions and operationally defined outcomes.[7][58] Effect size tests of astrology-based hypotheses conclude that the mean accuracy of astrological predictions is no greater than what is expected by chance. For example, when testing for cognitive, behavioral, physical and other variables, one study of 2000 astrological "time twins" born within minutes of each other did not show a celestial influence on human characteristics.[59] It has been suggested that other statistical research is often wrongly seen as evidence for astrology due to uncontrolled artifacts.[60]
Experimental psychologists have suggested that several different effects can contribute to perception of astrological accuracy. One observed tendency is known as the confirmation bias, whereby people who are given a set of multiple predictions tend to remember more of the accurate predictions ("hits") than the inaccurate ones ("misses"). Consequently, people tend to recall the set of predictions as being more accurate than it actually was. A second psychological phenomenon is known as the Forer effect, which refers to a tendency for individuals to give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that are presented to them as tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. When astrological predictions turn out to correspond with some phenomena but not with others, the recollected integrity of these predictions may stem in part from confirmation bias. When predictions use vague language, their individualized appearance may be partially attributable to the Forer effect.
Science and mysticism and religion do not necessarily contradict each other or collide. Unless you ONLY think "in straight lines" or ONLY in "black and white".
I agree that science and mystcism and religion do not necessarily contradict each other. However, at the times when they do contradict each other I'll always put my trust into science because of all three it's the one that relies most heavily on logic.
Other people of course are free to put their trust wherever they want. If a person isn't scientifically inclined that doesn't diminish their value as a human being. They could still give great advice or be a fantastic cook or a wonderful friend. I just wouldn't want them to teach my kids how nature works, that's all.
EDIT: In order not to drag the thread further off topic I suggest that we either carry on the discussion about the validity of astrology in private messages or that someone opens a thread in the community discussion forum.
» Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:55 am 
