Ask HN: How to prove that astrology works?
Hello, I have some astrological knowledge and want to prove that the position of the starts affects the human personality and events. I am sure about that and have enough knowledge to calculate it, but how to prove it to an audience like HN?
61 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 122 ms ] threadWe've been wrong before, and we're likely going to be wrong again.
That the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade and ideas.
In light of that knowledge that we may be wrong, the best course of action, the safest course of action, is to go ahead and listen to the ideas on the other side.
The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself verified by the scientific method.
Those are the ideas that we can safely act upon. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based on imperfect knowledge.
That, at any rate, is the theory of the US constitution itself. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment.
Therefore technically speaking, your statement is wrong. Astrology has NOT been disproven.
Nothing can be known or proven in science. We don't know in the same way as we don't know whether or not Christianity or any other major religion is correct or "_incorrect_".
> Nothing can be known or proven in science.
Since we're trying to be pedantic, on the contrary, things can very much be known or proven in "natural science" (I am assuming that you are not talking about "formal science", because then your comment would be even more unreasonable). Of course whether something is provable or knowable depends on the nature of the thing itself.
> we don't know whether or not Christianity or any other major religion is correct or incorrect
Theology is a big can of worms, but these big objects should be broken down into smaller pieces: whereas science cannot possibly prove or disprove the existence of a "God" (depending on the definition we use, and the characteristics we ascribe to such an entity), science does very much inform us on the boundaries within which, or outside of which, theology can reside. For instance, we know that it is impossible to transform water into wine, at least in any real sense and in conditions relevant to biblical texts.
I am talking about formal science. Nothing can be proven in science. Proof is the domain of logics and maths not science. Nothing in science is axiomatic as every supposed "law" is subject to a contrarian observation at any point in time.
This isn't pedantry. Astrology has not been proven or falsified. Neither have religions. That's why religions are so popular. Maintaining an unbiased outlook towards all things including things that sound fantastic is the epitome of neutrality. Heliocentricism at one point in time sounded just as absurd as astrology. Galileo was exiled for his ideas. To make sure we don't exile a man for presenting a previously unknown truth we must listen to the other side despite how contrarian it sounds.
>Theology is a big can of worms, but these big objects should be broken down into smaller pieces: whereas science cannot possibly prove or disprove the existence of a "God" (depending on the definition we use, and the characteristics we ascribe to such an entity), science does very much inform us on the boundaries within which, or outside of which, theology can reside. For instance, we know that it is impossible to transform water into wine, at least in any real sense and in conditions relevant to biblical texts.
Science cannot prove that you can't turn water into wine. This is an assumption you made by stringing together tidbits of anecdotal knowledge. That is not science. It is just a reasonable assumption, but an assumption nonetheless.
Put it this way. What sort of scientific experiment can you run to prove definitively that water can't be turned into wine? What sort of trial should be run and how many times do these trials need to be repeated before you can say definitively that water can't be turned into wine?
You likely can't think of a way. And this is because it's impossible. Literally. At this point in time you may not be able to put your finger why it's impossible, but even without knowing why you'll find that your unable to think of an experiment that can pull off a proof.
To bring it back to the main point. Your assumption that astrology is not true is reasonable, but it is still an assumption. Due to the fact that it is an assumption we must always be open to alternative explanations to make sure we don't make the same mistakes we did in the past.
I.e. if we had the capability to transmute elements (which I think is theoretically possible, given enough energy and technology?), could we turn H2O molecules into all the other molecules needed for wine?
This is just stringing together random facts and figures to form a logical deduction. That's not science.
To do science you need to be able to run a trial and observe an event that supports your hypothesis. Then you need to run this trial several times to make sure that the observed event is consistent. Even after this at any subsequent time after the experiment there can be new observations that contradict the hypothesis.
My question is what is... what is the experiment you would run to prove water can't be turned into wine. Science involves evidence that must be observable in some form.
The medical industry does not simply use our knowledge of biochemistry to engineer medicine and give it to people. They run trials and testing to increase confidence around the efficacy of the medicine. That is science.
I don't think you could prove that.
Trying to distinguish whether or not a specific idea from astrology is or is not “disproven” means you waste time arguing about topics many of which are too vague to be falsifiable.
So I chose the word “unproven” on purpose and I stand by it, because it’s the correct word.
Of course the problem with using the word "disproven" like I did, and like you correctly pointed out, is that we're referring to a very loosely defined and nebulous set of ideas. To disprove something requires a precise definition of the thing in the first place.
I would argue that this difficulty is not necessarily fatal to the argument. It is an inevitable difficulty (and please pardon me as I get into a semantic argument), because the word "astrology" cannot be made to map to real mechanisms, phenomena, or "real life things". The set of ideas we refer to under any reasonable definition of "astrology" are incoherent with reality as a whole.
One could reduce the set of ideas behind astrology to be "merely unfalsifiable" and/or "merely unfalsified" by eliminating all demonstrably incorrect ideas, but then I am not sure that we would be left with enough ideas to still call it "astrology": the thing would have lost its essence and most of its usual meaning.
The approach I just described is reductionist, or deconstructive. Consider the inverse (or "constructive") approach: start with an obviously-wrong idea, and attach to it many other subordinate or secondary ideas, some of which might be right, some of which might be unprovable. Give this set of ideas a new name. As a whole, the set of ideas is still wrong if it is essentially wrong, or predicated on wrong ideas. The addition of extra ideas to the collection only serves to confuse people, but doesn't make it "less wrong" as a whole.
Disproven means, "proven to be false", while unproven means there is no proof yet, either positive or negative, right?
How can one be a subset of the other?
I personally agree with you. But I feel it is wrong to call what he says a joke or simply not give him the opportunity to prove himself. That would be a mistake that humanity has made several times resulting in delayed progress of many revolutionary ideas.
Our bias constructs a reality so believable that we cannot differentiate it from the objective truth. To escape our own bias means going against our instincts to listen to an idea that seems preposterous or "crazy,"
The result will also need to avoid the use of Barnum statements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect as they are subject to interpretation.
(Disclaimer: I do not, and will never, believe in astrology.)
I think you'd be interested in knowing that Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR (and a Nobel laureate), also believed in astrology [1].
[1]: http://www.crawfordperspectives.com/documents/IAMACAPRICORN_...
Everything else is religion.
There is one theory according to Douglas Adams that if one figures this out the universe will reset and recreate itself in a much more complex manor. There are other theories that this has already occurred.
You would have to control for this if you wanted to convince anyone that it was due to the positions of stellar objects.
(1) https://sportsmedicine-open.springeropen.com/articles/10.118...
(2) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_age_effect
Even then, correlation does not equal causation... so that means both astrology and the relative age effect quantitatively stand on equal ground in terms of causative possibilities.
HN's leaning against astrology is, in fact, from an empirical and logical perspective.. biased. Much of peoples' conclusions are formulated from anecdotal and circumstantial experiences, which has validity and is a conclusion I ultimately agree with... but looking at the totality of the reaction to this question, objectively it is a window into the nature of human bias.
I think you're inferring a bias against pseudoscience, which is good because the core of learning more about our universe is skepticism and finding empirical evidence to confirm belief. I don't believe you can find any such evidence for astrology that doesn't have a far simpler and compelling explanation, thus it would be extremely difficult to convince anyone that astrology "works."
Construct a hypothesis that's testable and conduct an experiment, either directly or through the collection of evidence. Then analyze and contrast against other explanations to draw conclusions. That's what it comes down to. It doesn't sound like you have done that.
2) give it to a lot of people, the more the better
3) also collect their birthdays
4) do a regression analysis to determine how well the sign based on birthday predicts the sign based on the survey response
5) profit
Good luck
Also, you must mean stars and planets, right? The positions of the stars take multiple human lifetimes to visibly change.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-o...
That is to say, there's probably no amount of proof you could show me which would convince me.
Sorry, you can't.
Astrology doesn't "work". If it did, then it would be at least in part a science.
Astrology is not a science, but a pseudoscience.