【Native Speaker每日综合训练—40系列】【40-02】文史哲 Astrology

ffffionabear

内容：Fffffionabear 编辑：Fffffionabear

公益申请名额，每月一名

Stay tuned to our latest post! Follow us here ---> http://weibo.com/u/3476904471

上期说千禧一代的伤了不少小鲜肉的心啊~~阿姨决定补偿你们一下~~，这次就来一发人人喊打却不能自拔的占星学吧（Astrology）
Speaker说的是判断科学还是瞎想的方法~~这哥们可有意思了好么~~
Speed是同志们对占星是一门伪科学的讨论→_→（用讨论貌似好点~~主题偏向赞成啊）
obstacle则相反，为批评者对占星不是科学的论断~~都是按点来说~~可清晰了好嘛~~快说阿姨是不是对你们很！好！~~enjoy~~~

Part I: Speaker

Science versus wonder
Source: TED Talk
http://www.ted.com/talks/robin_ince_science_versus_wonder/transcript#t-0
[Rephrase 1, 8:38]

ffffionabear

Part II: Speed

Is Astrology a Pseudoscience?
Austin Cline
[Time 2]
If astrology is not really a science, then is it possible to classify it as a form of pseudoscience? Most skeptics will readily agree with that classification, but only by examining astrology in light of some basic characteristics of science can we decide if such a judgment is warranted. First, let's consider eight basic qualities which characterize scientific theories and which are mostly or entirely lacking in pseudoscience:
• Consistent (internally and externally)
• Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
• Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
• Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
• Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
• Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
• Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
• Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
Just how well does astrology stack up when measured against these standards?

Is Astrology Consistent?

To qualify as a scientific theory, an idea has to be logically consistent, both internally (all of its claims must be consistent with each other) and externally (unless there are good reasons, it must be consistent with theories which are already known to be valid and true). If an idea is inconsistent, it is difficult to see how it actually explains anything at all, much less how it could possibly be true.

Astrology, unfortunately, cannot be called consistent either internally or externally. Demonstrating that astrology is not consistent externally with theories known to be true is easy because so much of what is claimed about astrology contradicts what is known in physics. This wouldn't be such a problem if astrologers could demonstrate that their theories explain nature better than much of modern physics, but they can't - as a consequence, their claims cannot be accepted.

The degree to which astrology is internally consistent is more difficult to say because so much of what is claimed in astrology can be very vague. It is certainly true that astrologers themselves regularly contradict each other and that there are different forms of astrology which are mutually exclusive - thus, in that sense, astrology is not internally consistent.
[353 words]

[Time 3]
Is Astrology Parsimonious?

The term "parsimonious" means "sparing or frugal." In science, to say that theories must be parsimonious means that they should not postulate any entities or forces which are not necessary to explain the phenomena in question. Thus, the theory that little fairies carry electricity from the light switch to the light bulb is not parsimonious because it postulates little fairies which simply aren't necessary to explain the fact that, when the switch is hit, the bulb comes on.

Likewise, astrology is also not parsimonious because it postulates unnecessary forces. For astrology to be valid and true, there must be some force which establishes a connection between people and various bodies in space. It is clear that this force cannot be anything already established, like gravity or light, so it must be something else. However, not only are astrologers unable to explain what his force is or how it operates, but it isn't necessary to explain the results which astrologers report. Those results can be explained much more simply and readily through other means, such as the Barnum Effect and Cold Reading.

For astrology to be parsimonious, the astrologers would have to produce results and data which cannot readily be explained by any other means but a new and undiscovered force which is capable of creating a connection between an individual and bodies in space, of influencing a person's life, and which is dependent upon the exact moment of his or her birth. However, despite the millennia which astrologers have had to work on this problem, nothing has been forthcoming.
[262 words]

[Time 4]
Is Astrology Based Upon Evidence?

In science, the claims made are verifiable in principle and then, when it comes to experiments, in fact. In pseudoscience, there are extraordinary claims made for which incredibly insufficient evidence is provided. This is important for obvious reasons - if a theory is not based upon evidence and cannot be empirically verified, there is no way to claim that it has any connection with reality.

Carl Sagan coined the phrase that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." What this means in practice is that if a claim is not very strange or extraordinary when compared to what we already know about the world, then not a lot of evidence is needed in order to accept the claim as likely to be accurate.

On the other hand, when a claim very specifically contradicts things which we already know about the world, then we would need quite a lot of evidence in order to accept it. Why? Because if this claim is accurate, then a lot of other beliefs which we take for granted cannot be accurate. If those beliefs are well-supported by experiments and observation, then the new and contradictory claim qualifies as "extraordinary" and should only be accepted when the evidence for it outweighs the evidence we currently possess against it.

Astrology is a perfect example of a field characterized by extraordinary claims. If distant objects in space are able to influence the character and lives of human beings to the degree alleged, then fundamental principles of physics, biology and chemistry which we already take for granted cannot be accurate. This would be extraordinary. Therefore, quite a lot of very high-quality evidence is required before the claims of astrology could possibly be accepted. The lack of such evidence, even after millennia of research, indicates that the field is not a science but rather a pseudoscience.
[309 words]

[Time 5]
Is Astrology Falsifiable?

Scientific theories are falsifiable, and one of the characteristics of pseudoscience is that pseudoscientific theories are not falsifiable, either in principle or in fact. To be falsifiable means that there must exist some state of affairs which, if it were true, would require that the theory is false.

Scientific experiments are designed to test for exactly such a state of affairs - if it occurs, then the theory is false. If it doesn't, then the possibility that the theory is true is made stronger. Indeed, it is a mark of genuine science that practitioners seek out such falsifiable conditions while pseudoscientists ignore or avoid them entirely.

In astrology, there does not appear to be any such state of affairs - that would mean that astrology is not falsifiable. In practice, we find that astrologers will latch onto even the weakest sorts of evidence in order to support their claims; however, their repeated failures to find evidence are never allowed as evidence against their theories.

It is certainly true that individual scientists can also be found avoiding such data - it is simply human nature to want a theory to be true and to avoid conflicting information. However, the same cannot be said for entire fields in science. Even if one person avoids unpleasant data, another researcher can make a name for herself by finding and publishing it - this is why science is self-correcting. Unfortunately, we don't find it occurring in astrology and because of that, astrologers cannot claim that astrology is consistent with reality.

Is astrology based upon controlled, repeatable experiments?

Scientific theories are based upon and lead to controlled, repeatable experiments, whereas pseudoscientific theories are based upon and lead to experiments which are not controlled and/or are not repeatable. These are two key characteristics of genuine science: controls and repeatability.

Controls means that it is possible, both in theory and in practice, to eliminate possible factors which might be affecting the results. As more and more possible factors are eliminated, it is easier to claim that only one particular thing is the "real" cause of what we see. For example, if doctors think that drinking wine makes people healthier, they will give test subjects not simply the wine, but drinks which contain only certain ingredients from the wine - seeing which subjects are healthiest will indicate what, if anything, in the wine is responsible.

Repeatability means that we are cannot be the only ones who arrive at our results. In principle, it must be possible for any other independent researcher to try to perform the exact same experiment and arrive at the exact same conclusions. When this happens in practice, our theory and our results are further confirmed.

In astrology, however, neither controls nor repeatability appear to be common - or, sometimes, to even exist at all. Controls, when they do appear, are typically very lax. When controls are sufficiently tightened to pass regular scientific scrutiny, it is common that astrologers' abilities no longer manifest themselves to any degree beyond that of chance.

Repeatability also does not really occur because independent investigators are unable to duplicate the alleged findings of astrology believers. Even other astrologers prove unable to consistently replicate the findings of their colleagues, at least when strict controls on the studies are imposed. So long as the findings of astrologers cannot be reliably reproduced, astrologers cannot claim that their findings are consistent with reality, that their methods are valid or that astrology is in anyway true.
[583 words]

[Rest]
Is Astrology Correctable?

In science, theories are dynamic - this means that they are susceptible to correction due to new information, either from experiments done for the theory in question or done in other fields. In a pseudoscience, little ever changes. New discoveries and new data do not cause believers to reconsider fundamental assumptions or premises.

Is astrology correctable and dynamic? There is precious little evidence of astrologers making any basic shifts in how they approach their subject. They may incorporate some new data, like the discovery of new planets, but the principles of sympathetic magic still form the basis of everything astrologers do. The characteristics of the various zodiac signs are fundamentally unchanged from the days of ancient Greece and Babylon. Even in the case of new planets, no astrologers have come forward to admit that earlier horoscopes were all flawed due to insufficient data (because the earlier astrologers were not taking one-third of the planets in this solar system into account).

When ancient astrologers saw the planet Mars, it appeared red - this was associated with blood and war. Thus, the planet itself was associated with warlike and aggressive character traits, something which has continued down to this day. A genuine science would have only attributed such characteristics to Mars after careful study and mountains of empirical, repeatable evidence. The basic text for astrology is Ptolemy's Tetrabiblios, written about 1,000 years ago. What science class uses an 1,000 year-old text?
[242 word]

[Time 6]
Is Astrology Tentative?

In genuine science, no one argues that a lack of alternative explanations is itself a reason to consider their theories correct and accurate. In pseudoscience, such arguments are made all of the time. This is an important difference because, when properly performed, science always acknowledges that the current failure to find alternatives does not indicate that a theory in question is actually true. At most, the theory should only be regarded as the best available explanation - something to be quickly discarded at the earliest possible moment, namely when research provides a better theory.

In astrology, however, claims are often framed in an unusually negative manner. The aim of experiments is not to find data which a theory can explain; instead, the aim of experiments is to find data which cannot be explained. The conclusion is then drawn that, in the absence of any scientific explanation, the results must be attributed to something supernatural or spiritual.

Such arguments are not only self-defeating but specifically unscientific. They are self-defeating because the they define the realm of astrology in narrow terms - astrology describes whatever regular science cannot, and only that much. So long as regular science expands what it can explain, astrology will occupy a smaller and smaller realm, until it finally disappears.

Such arguments are also unscientific because they move in the exact opposite direction of how science operates. Scientific theories are designed to incorporate more and more data - scientists prefer fewer theories which describe more phenomena rather than many theories which each describe very little. The most successful scientific theories of the 20th century were simple mathematical formulas which describes wide ranging physical phenomena. Astrology, however, in defining itself in narrow terms as to what cannot otherwise be explained does just the opposite.

This particular characteristic is not as strong with astrology as with other beliefs such as parapsychology. Astrology does exhibit it to some degree: for example, when it is alleged that a statistical correlation between some astronomical event and human personalities cannot be explained by any normal scientific means, therefore astrology must be true. This is an argument from ignorance and a consequence of the fact that astrologers, despite millennia of work, have so far been unable to identify any mechanism by which its claims could be caused.
[385 words]
Source: Atheism.about
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_astro_sci_pseudo.htm

ffffionabear

Part III: Obstacle

Is Astrology a Science?
Dr. Abraham T. Kovoor

[Paraphrase 7]
Is Astrology a Legitimate Science?

With so many different systems out there, it is a bit difficult to define 'astrology'. The good part, however, is that all of them more or less talk about the same thing - the influence of celestial bodies on our lives. So, loosely, astrology can be defined as a form of divination which goes by the belief that life on Earth is guided by celestial alignments. In other words, the alignment of stars and planets at the time of your birth decides your nature and future.

Astrology has been subjected to numerous scientific tests time and again, and every single time, the results have been disastrous. Had it been a science, astrology would have easily passed these tests, but the fact that it hasn't, definitely has something to say. If we produce 12 individuals born under different zodiac signs in front of an astrologer, and ask him to identify their zodiac signs on the basis of their characteristic traits, would he be able to do that? If astrology is really scientific, he should be able to pull off this task with immense ease. He won't, or rather can't, and that's only because astrology is a superstition, which was developed on a fragile base when astronomy and astrology were considered one and the same.

Modern astrology was developed around 2,000 years ago, when human knowledge of the Universe was limited. Back then, it was believed that the Earth was the center and everything moved around it. Other than the Sun and Moon, the existence of only a few planets which were already discovered by then was taken into consideration, when this supposed science was developed. Over the course of time, many new planets, stars, and galaxies were discovered. We realized that our solar system is a tiny part of the Universe, our Sun is just one of the millions of stars out there, and there are many more planets than what we thought. Surprisingly, all these findings were never incorporated into astrology, and even today, astrologers go by the beliefs that were held around 2,000 years ago.

The only development that we have seen in astrology is the addition of Ophiuchus as the 13th zodiac sign (that's if at all it can be called a development, because most of the astrologers do not acknowledge the new sun sign.) That the astrologers prefer to keep this constellation out of their realms isn't really surprising, because if they acknowledge it, then all their previous predictions will be questioned. From the astrologers' point of view, this is a classic case of 'Damned if You Do, Doomed if You Don't'. Any new finding in the field of science is published and subjected to peer review by a community of researchers. When it comes to astrology though, new findings are either refuted, or not acknowledged in the first place.

If you have been following the horoscope for Capricorn because you were born somewhere between 22nd December and 21st January, then you'll be disappointed to hear that you have been banking on the wrong zodiac sign all this while. It's surprising that astrologers have failed to update the basic premise on which the so-called science stands - the constellations. Basically, the Sun appears to move along the ecliptic across the 12 zodiac constellations in the ecliptic path. In course of this, it spends roughly around a month in each constellation. So the constellation in which the Sun rises at the time of your birth automatically becomes your zodiac sign. This seems sound theoretically, but there is a slight problem.

The zodiac sign assigned to a particular month is not based on the constellation in which the Sun rises today, but instead, is based on the constellation in which the Sun used to rise in ancient times, when astrology was in its developmental phase. Axial precision, i.e. the gradual shift in the orientation of the Earth's axis, has brought about a drastic change in the celestial alignment, which, in turn, has shuffled the zodiac date ranges. Going by the current alignment, you are a Sagittarius if you were born in the first fortnight of January, not a Capricorn.
The Sun, whilst cruising along the ecliptic, spends a lot more time in the Ophiuchus constellation than it does in the Scorpius constellation. Even more surprising is the fact that the Ophiuchus has been in the picture for thousands of years, and yet, has been ignored by astrologers. Back then, the Babylonians decided to ignore Ophiuchus as they wanted an even number of zodiac signs. Today, however, astrologers are forced to ignore this constellation for some obvious reasons we spoke of above.

It's not like adding Ophiuchus will put astrology on the right path, but by not acknowledging its existence, astrologers are definitely doing injustice to the beautiful world out there.

The 'Unknown' Force

What is it about the 'chosen few' celestial bodies which make their influence on our lives so strong? Some say gravity is the factor, which could have well been the correct answer, had the Relative Planetary Gravity of the Moon (7.7) not been greater than that of Jupiter (5.8). Astrologers argue that the distance doesn't matter, and the influence of Jupiter on our lives is stronger than that of the Moon. If distance is really not an issue, like they say, then shouldn't all the planets in the Universe be considered, or at least the ones that we have discovered, thanks to our powerful space observatories? An easier way out is to say it's an unknown force that cannot be explained, and that's exactly what most astrologers do.

Those Non-existent Planets

Of the Navagrahas, which are considered the major influencers in Hindu astrology, only five, i.e. the Mangala (Mars), Budha (Mercury), Brihaspati (Jupiter), Shukra (Venus), and Shani (Saturn), are associated with true planets. Other than these, there are the Surya (Sun) and Chandra (Moon), which can still be given the benefit of doubt as they are celestial bodies, and Rahu and Ketu, which don't even exist. Basically, Rahu and Ketu are the orbital nodes of the Moon. Uranus and Neptune, and Pluto - considered a planet until recently, don't find a place in the elite list of influencers in astrology. That perhaps has something to do with the fact that they were not discovered when astrology made its debut. In antiquity, all the non-fixed objects that were seen in the sky were considered planets, including the Sun and the Moon, and traces of this are seen in the concept of Navagrahas.

Biting Off More than it Can Chew

Yet another problem with the zodiac is the fact that it tries to accumulate too much into one. If the population of the world is 7 billion, then each zodiac sign should have roughly around 580 million people, and these 580 million people should more or less have a similar day. Leave alone a similar day, these people won't even have the same nature. Think about it, if leadership is a quality which is associated with certain zodiac signs, wouldn't all the leaders have one of 'these' zodiac signs? And if astrology helps you identify leaders, why do we even need leadership development programs?

Why Do People Believe in Astrology?

Many people say they believe in astrology as it works and they have themselves experienced it. But does it 'actually' work? Your daily horoscope says you will have some money coming your way today, and you find a quarter in the pocket of your old jeans. How accurate would you consider a prediction like this one. Logically speaking, the vaguer a comment, more are the chances that it will turn out to be true. It's highly unlikely that an astrologer will tell you that you will find a $100 bill in your old jeans, and you will actually find one. Furthermore, it's also worth noting that we are more likely to remember those astrological predictions that we think came true, like 'money coming your way', and ignore the ones that didn't.
Then there are people who swear by the fact that a person's nature can be determined by the time and date of his birth. They argue that they know people who display the traits that are associated with their respective zodiac signs, and even go to the extent of asserting that their own traits make it more than evident. This, once again, is the case of concentrating on things that you can relate to, and ignoring the ones that you don't. It's something similar to our tendency of ignoring all the good things that someone does, but remembering the one bad thing done by him.

The Forer Effect

As for readily associating with ones own zodiac traits, it has more to do with the Forer effect, which says that astrological readings are so vague that they can apply to everybody. If you haven't previously read about your 'own' zodiac sign, any reading that you come across will come across as a perfect reading, as you will instinctively relate to things that you believe have been written about you. If you have been following 'your' zodiac sign closely for a long time, then you will argue that the reading is far from perfect, not because it's actually far from perfect, but because you have hard-wired your brain to believe that you belong to a certain zodiac sign, and therefore, should only demonstrate the traits of that particular sign.

The daily horoscope column in the newspaper is quite popular among masses. While the person in charge of this column at the newspaper office would laugh it off saying, who believes in such stuff anyway, it's worth noting that millions of people plan their day after reading these columns. It doesn't just stop there though. People choose their life partners, and companies hire people after taking into consideration zodiac signs. If it's immoral to judge someone on the basis of their caste, creed, or ethnicity, how does it make sense to judge someone on the basis of their sun sign?

Interestingly, there is no consensus among astrologers themselves. Each astrologer asserts that he is the best in the business, and has an equally loyal fan following vouching for him. A person who believes in Hindu astrology (jyotisha), which is quite popular in India, will dismiss the daily horoscope column in the newspapers as a joke, and yet fail to answer convincingly as to why the system that he follows should be taken seriously.

As you evaluate each attribute of astrology, you will realize that far from science, astrology is actually a pseudoscience. Without any practical or scientific evidence, it can only be considered a source of entertainment... nothing more. Earlier, people looked at the sky as the heavens - the abode of god - which was connected to the life on the planet in some mysterious way. Today, however, we can confidently say that we know a considerable bit of what's happening out there. The sad part is that, even after knowing this, we fail to see through the fraud that astrology is.
[1848 words]
Source:Buzzle
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/is-astrology-a-science.html

vivianpdn

艾玛，第一次占沙发，还是Fffffionabear的沙发（我好喜欢她选的内容，永远那么俏皮!）,容我小小兴奋一下。。。明天补作业，哈哈

----------------------------
免得浪费帖子空间，就在这里贴吧~~ 感觉好像走进误区了，尼玛全是细节说好的结构呢！！

--------------------

2'30
main idea:how to warranted classify the astrology.
1)some may classified astrology as pseudoscience,but it should be examining some basic qualities science necessitate to have
  if the classification want to be warranted.
2)one characteristic of science is consistant.but astrology cannot be called consistant either internally or externally.

2'12
main idea:astrology is not parsimonious
1) the term"parsimonious" means "sparing and frugal".
2)astrology is not parsimonious because it postulates unnecessary forces.
3)for astrology to be parsimonious,it would have to create new undiscovered forces to connect individual to bodies in space.

2'13
main idea:astrology needs a lot of extraordinary evidence.
1)pseudoscience needs a lot of extraordinary claims for people to accept it.
2)extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
3)when a claim is contradict with things we already take for granted,it needs extraordinary evidence to demonstrate the things we already know is inaccurate.
4)astrology is a good example of extraordinary claims,because it creates a connection between individual and bodies in space,challenging the status of physics,
  chemistry and biology we already take for granted.

4'26
main idea:astrology is not falsifiable and not based on controlled and repeatable experiments.
1)geniune science is falsifiable ,both in principle and in fact.but astrology is not falsifiable.
2)there are no affairs to demonstrate astrology is falsifiable.
----
1)scientific theories are based on and lead to controlled and repeatable experiments.but astrology cannot based on either controllable or repeatable experiments.

REST 1'42
mian idea:astrology is not so correctable.
1)science theories are dynamic,because they will change for new  discoveries and experiment.but pseudoscience science has changed little.
2)the distinct evidence of conclusion such as the Mars appearance between astrologer and scientists.

2'59
main idea:astrology is tentative.
1)while science theories cannot claimed to be accurate or not for a lack of alternative explanation,astrology stands the opposite.
2)astrology is often framed in negative manner;the aim of experiment is to find data that cannot be explained.
3)astrology narrows its term  ,standing the opposite of the geniune science.
4)the connection with other beliefs such as parapsychology.

11'03
main idea:how astrology operates ,astrology is not a science,just an  entertainment.
1)define the astrology as the reflection from celestial bodies.alignment of star decide your nature and future.
2)astrology developed 2000 years ago when knowledge of science is limited.
3)the creation of Ophiuchus zodiac sign.
4)the problem of zodiac sign:
   1.based on none-exist planets
   2.try to accumulate too much into one.
5)people are tend to concentrating on the things that they can relate to but ignoring those you don't
6)interstingly,there are no consensus among astrologers. astrology is not a science,but just an entertainment,nothing more.

ffffionabear

自占一个~艾玛谢谢妹纸喜欢~→_→我也是有人喜欢的人了么呵呵呵呵呵呵呵#傲娇#
----无限感恩~！！进击的阅读小分队~~你的作业（ ￣ー￣）[冷笑]  不，是你的作业~~一天不做，浑身哆嗦~~--------------------------------------
妈蛋我找这么多字的是要干嘛~~差点害死自己
[speaker]
Science never ruins the magic,those magic which could be ruined will definitely replaced by other wonderful things.Astrology can predict your life,but losing it,you still can observe the starry sky.
[speed]
1'34
Science should be consistent both in internal and external.But Astrology cannot be called consistent in either sides,thesis talking about Astrology mostly belong to physics.
1'39
Astrology isn't parsimonious because it postulates unnessary forces.Thus,results and data produced by astrologers cannot be explained by any other means.
2'02
Science should be based on evidence and be verifiable when the evidence comes from experiments.But for Astrology,most of its evidence come from extraordinary,and cannot be verified.
2'27
Science should be falsifiable and based on controlled,repeatable experiments.We shouldn't be the only one reach the result.And to prove the factor is responsible,we should eliminate other possible factors in a controlled situtation.Obviously,Astrology couldn't match either terms above.
1'43
Astrology neglects new data and evidence,using the timeworn text as basic theory,cannot be corrected.
2'51
Astrology doesn't tentative,its claims are often framed in a negative manner.The aim of Astrology is not to find data that a theory can explain,but to find data cannot be explained.But in dividing people into different personalities could be scientific in Astrology.
[obstacle]  
12'44
main idea:Astrology is actually a pseudoscience,a source of entertainment,and nothing more.
proof of pseudoscience:
1.The unknown force:Astrologers believe the time of birth will decides your nature and future by effecting the alignment of stars.Any things cannot be explained by science will be ascribed to the unknown force.
2.Non-existence stars:Although the Astrology regard itsely as science for that their thesis are based on the zodiac.But the zodiac had been changed,a new star was found,and they ignored that.
3.too much to control.the zodiac could not cover all people on earth.
solution: People who believed in Astrology are effected by Forer effect,you will do what you believed.

小蘑菇开始打怪

发现占座也没办法逼自己交作业了。。
----------
谢谢fiona~

speaker:

the universe is recycled

human brain the most complex thing in the world

just imagine how wonderful and fantastic the world and the universe are

time2:

qualities of science and these qualities cannot be found in pseudoscience

inconsistent lead to error

astrology is vague=inconsistent

time3:

parsimonious=sparing or frugal

astrology postulates unnecessary forces

time4:

science needs to be based on evidence

however astrology has no evidence to support the conclusion

time5:

pseudoscientific theories are not falsfiable

science is self-correcting

two key characteristics of genuine science: controls and repeatability

example of an experiment

time6:

astrology is aimed at explaining something unusual

time7:

astrology is not science

the origins of zodiac sign

gravity may be the factor

people born in the same time will have the same characteristics?

why people believe in astrology

forer effect

source of entertainment

CatherineTSIM

[Time 2] 2’09’’

Main idea: If a subject wants to be judgewhether it is science or not, it should obey the 8 basis characteristics.

Structure:

(1)   The eight characteristics.

(2)   Astrology does not obeyconsistent either internally or externally.

[Time 3] 1’58’’

Main idea: The astrology does not obey parsimonious.

Structure:

(1)   Explain the meaning ofparsimonious.

(2)   The astrology does not obey parsimoniousbecause there is no connection between people and bodies in space, furthermore, the astrologers can not produce forthcoming results or data.

[Time 4] 1’38’’

Main idea: If astrology claims to be true,it needs extraordinary large evidence to support it.

Structure:

(1)   The reason why extraordinaryclaim needs extraordinary evidence is that the extraordinary claim against thegenerally accepted theory, if the claim is true, the generally accepted theory withthe evidences will be unaccepted.

(2)   Astrology is a extraordinaryclaim and it needs extraordinary evidences.

[Time 5] 3’27’’

Main idea: Astrology is not falsifiable, controlsand repeatability.

Structure:

(1)    Pseudoscience is notfalsifiable.

(2)    Astrology is not occurring tobe consistent with reality.

(3)    The characteristics of scienceare controls and repeatability.

(4)    The too lax samples and unableto collect data from samples make astrology neither controls nor repeatability.

[REST] 1’28’’

Main idea: Astrology is not correctable.

Structure:

(1)   Science will accept the newinformation to correct the theory.

(2)   Astrology can not becorrectable because the data it use is too old.

[Time 6] 2’22’’

Main idea: Astrology is not tentative.

Structure:

(1)   The meaning of tentative andastrology is not tentative.

(2)   Although astrology does notobey the eight characteristics, it sometimes appear to be true in certain circumstance.

[Obstacle] 11’28’’

Main idea: Astrology is only anentertainment and pseudoscience but not science.

Structure:

(1)   It is hard to define astrology.

(2)   The reason that astrology is pseudoscienceis that it bases on fragile base that can not be proved. (Astrology is based ona 2000-year-old text.)

(3)   The problem of zodiac sign:astrology is not all associated with true planet.

(4)   The reason that People find horoscopetrue is that it just states a chance to be true, the prediction is notaccurate.

(5)   Because of Forer Effect, peoplefind astrology true. In short, astrology is pseudoscience.

占星术各种有趣！
学新单词！还有巴纳姆效应！
今天越障的速度不忍直视了。。。。

疏离无罪

占~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Speaker: All of the magic that may well be taken away by science is then replaced by something as wonderful.
There many wonderful things in our life.The speaker raised many examples in the speech.Those world theories,our atoms can exist forever,our predilection to our child and so on.

02:14
8 elements that can define science. 1 consistent: Astrology is not consistent either internally or externally.

01:14
2 Parsimonious： Astrology is also not parsimonious because it postulates unnecessary forces。And it can not explain the foce that build the connection between individuals and bodies in space.

01:39
3 Astrology is not based on evidence.If astrology is true,all the fundamental priciple in physics,biology and many other science with high-quality evidence will be false.And no other evidence can prove it to be true.

02:56
4 Astrology is not falsifiable.We can find out many falsifiable affairs that astrology ignored.
5 Astrology is not based on controlled and repetable experiments.Given the same conditions,it may have different outcome.

02:20
Astrology is not tentative.When properly performed, science always acknowledges that the current failure to find alternatives does not indicate that a theory in question is actually true.It may just be the best available explanation.But astrology perfome in an opposite way.

06:19
Astrology is sth about the alignment of stars and planets at the time of your birth decides your nature and future.And all experiment showed that astrology is not science.Modern astrology was developed around 2,000 years ago.Although science prove many things about the universe,astrology is stilling going by the beleives 2000 years ago.Anything new added into the theray may ruin the previous predictions.
The zodiac sign should be different now,because the gradual shift in the orientation of the Earth's axis.The sun also spent time in Ophiuchus constellation,but Ophiuchus is never in zodiac sign.And there are also many stars never exist.
According to astrology,people with the same zodiac sign may have a similar day which is totally ridiculous.But still many people believed in astrology and they related many things in life to the astrology theroies.
There is the forer effect in the astrology,in which astrological readings are so vague that they can apply to everybody.

ZOEYZHANG114

People judege that the astrology is not science according to eight science characters
Astrology is an extrodinary item and people can not determine it is science or pseudoscience.
Astrology is not consistent with reality, so it is hard to say it's ture or not
The eight characters can help clarify some myths about aastroloy.
Astrology works on people, because they want to believe.

cyndichiang

Time2 2'17''
8 characters the science has and distinguishes from pseudoscience.
Astrology is not consistent both externally and internally.

Time3 2'13''
"Parsimonious" means that sth should not be explained by force that is unnecessary in the phenomena.
Astrology is not parsimonious since it postulates unnecessary forces.

Time4 1'47''
Astrology is classified as extraordinary claim, but lacks practical or verifiable evidence

Time5 2'08''
Astrology is not falsifiable since it cannot test a state of affairs.
Astrology cannot be tested repeatedly.
Astrology is not correctable since it cannot shift its approach.

Time6 2'26''
Whether the astrology is tentative?---no exact answer
Astrology is opposite of what science operates and occupied realm that science cannot explain.
To some extent, astrology does use scientific method.
Its effect :
Obstacle: 6'52''
Astrology has fragile base and is similar to astronomy to some extent.
Zodiac（黄道） is basis of astrology and constellation is the main tool.
Two non-existed planets.
People just bit off astrology without chewing it.
The reason people believe in astrology
its effect: judge people' characteristics by astrology
people cannot see through this fraud.