Comments on: Things only An Astrologist Could Believe

By: bob

bob — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 00:50:02 +0000

astrology is the root of all science and goes back to the beginning of time, all science stems from astrology… check it

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:55:36 +0000

Astrology isn’t science.
Anybody who believes it is is either ignorant, a liar, or is using a sufficiently idiosyncratic definition of “science” that they cannot expect to engage in fruitful discussion with the rest of us.

By: Richard Veryard

Richard Veryard — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 06:30:18 +0000

In case anyone is wondering, I didn’t write the third comment (Posted by: Richard | September 5, 2008 3:46 PM). From the reference to “my hypothesis” makes it looks as if it were another comment from our Vedic friend.
Actually, the statement that the sun rises exactly in 24 hour intervals is only true if you know nothing about astronomy and/or you adopt a solar method for measuring the length of an hour.
I don’t want to turn this discussion into a tutorial on scientific method (defined by Wikipedia as “the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses”).
What confuses me about the hypothesis posed by our Vedic friend is whether he is trying to predict the decision-making behaviour of Google executives or the successful outcome of their decisions. Even if Google executives are making auspicious decisions, this could be explained either by the fact that they are employing the services of an astrologer, or by the fact that Google happens to have good (= astrologically blessed) executives. Or something.

By: Occam

Occam — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:22:56 +0000

Mango may want to read on Occam’s razor principle.

By: Occam

Occam — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:59:53 +0000

Mango may want to read on Occam’s razor principle.

By: Mango

Mango — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:37:22 +0000

Hypothesis: Computers function by making use of a magic smoke that is trapped within its smallest components.
Method: Use a large power spike to release the magic smoke.
Result: Magic smoke is seen escaping, computer no longer works.
HYPOTHESIS CONFIRMED!

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:46:53 +0000

Observational science uses the scientific method, which requires the prediction of future results. So.
Hypothesis: The sun comes up every 24 hrs.
Method: I will time when the sun crosses the horizon.
Results: I succesfully predicted 50 sunrises with a 100% degree of accuracy. This is further evidence that my hypothesis is correct.
(Although, I note that since 24 hrs is the period between sunrises by definition of a day, this is circular.)
In the example above:
Hypothesis: Google determines product releases using vedic astrology.
Method: I predict the next five product releases will corresponf with “excellent Muhurta.”
Results: 17 of 20 releases correspond with “exellent Muhurta.” Which is statitically significant and supports my hypothesis.

By: Richard Veryard

Richard Veryard — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:58:30 +0000

What our Vedic friend is actually telling us is that Google “may not have hesitated” in its use of Vedic astrology.
To be honest, I also find it hard to believe that Google executives sat around dithering about whether to use Vedic astrology or not.
In another post, our Vedic friend analyzes the botched Microsoft-Yahoo deal. Now why do I find it easier to imagine Yahoo executives dithering? Is that an example of confirmation bias? Have I been reading too much Fake-Steve diaries?

By: Vedic

Vedic — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:06:30 +0000

The blog at http://www.decisioncare.org is not really confirmation bias. The post tries to analyze the planetary positions based on principles of Vedic astrology. Google may have done product launches in the past successfully but that doesn't guarantee future. There are many incidents of product failure coming from successful companies, not to name anyone in particular. By your definition, all of observational science is confirmation bias and doesn't advance knowledge.