posted April 15, 2014 09:18 PM            

For years, James Randi and his foundation have been offering a million dollars to anyone who can pass his tests confirming psychic or divination ability. Everyone fails. The tests are kind of ridiculous, IMHO, but that's another story.

Looking around on YouTube a bit, I haven't seen any astrologers tested.

I keep thinking that if he set up a test for an astrologer that matches his other tests...where, say, the astrologer is shown a number of charts, introduced to a number of people, and told to match them all up...a good astrologer should be able to do that.

Don't you think?

posted April 15, 2014 09:47 PM            

Around 3:25: He gives false information about homeopathy. Interesting.

Horoscope part begins at 5:04

He gives false information about astrology, too. He doesn't know how much you can glean without a birth time.

posted April 15, 2014 09:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
Thanks!

---

posted April 15, 2014 10:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercurian Intellect:
Well I remember watching a video that he faked an astrologer by giving him his fake birth details, then the astrologers described his personality and got a lot of things correct about Randi. That's where the problem came up.

Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flZXJ-Ewsn4

---

The astrologer didn't ask Randi for his birth info--it's right there in the video, around the 8:00 mark. Besides, he's a known personality. How much of his description really comes from reading his miscast chart, and how much comes from what he might already know about the man?

posted April 15, 2014 10:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by page one:
The astrologer didn't ask Randi for his birth info--it's right there in the video, around the 8:00 mark. Besides, he's a known personality. How much of his description really comes from reading his miscast chart, and how much comes from what he might already know about the man?

---

What do you mean the astrologer didn't ask for his birth info? Are you implying that the astrologer tried to predict his birthday by Randi's characteristics? Why would the astrologer do something like that?
Like Randi even said, that should only apply to someone who was born on the date that astrologer used for the chart.

Maybe you're right, but I assumed that it wasn't the case. I guess because I wouldn't think an astrologer trying to prove Astrology would do something as stupid as that.

posted April 16, 2014 12:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:

I keep thinking that if he set up a test for an astrologer that matches his other tests...where, say, the astrologer is shown a number of charts, introduced to a number of people, and told to match them all up...a good astrologer should be able to do that.

Don't you think?

I wish astrology could take that prize.

---

posted April 16, 2014 04:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
He's actually done a lot of good. Like exposing charlatans such as Uri Geller (the spoon bending shyster) and Peter Popoff (the faith healing fraud) who bilk innocent people out of their money. He's shown researchers how to look for magician's tricks. The million is in an account and is legit. All the psychic would have to do is pass scientific scrutiny; so far, none have done any better than chance. Astrology has been tested by other researchers many times. The same result--no better than chance. Astrology works, but how it does so is outside the realm of science. There is no mechanism in physics that can explain how bodies that distant can affect human beings on Earth.

---

posted April 16, 2014 09:14 AM            

Astrology has been proven using statistics, both by Carl Payne Tobey and by the Magi Society. Tobey attacked the scientists by calculating the probability for their own theories, and they stopped attacking him once they saw how their own methods were flawed. He should have lived to see them come up with String Theories!
In "Forbidden Archaeology", the author clearly proves how every piece of evidence that contradicts Dr Leaky's hypothesis on a missing link hominid was thrown out.

See, we have great scientists today claiming the Universe is made up of some "Dark Matter". Surely Astrology is far more specific and scientific than claiming "Dark Matter" or "Invisible Particles" (that even a particle accelerator cannot isolate) to be the source of the Universe.

Another statistical proof given by Tobey is the "Moon Wobble" effect.

Example: Every time the Sun and Lunar Node Axis formed a square aspect, there was a freak fire accident that was serious enough to be reported. Other days also had such accidents but they had a random distribution.

Another statistical anomaly. More than 80% of all German Spies caught during WW2 in America had a Sagittarius Sun.

posted April 16, 2014 09:26 AM            

quote:

---

'Course such a person would then have such a hellish life after as ruthless forces attempted to enslave or dissect him or her, and it would be even worse if the public knew where this person was, and everyone would definitely want to know where this person was. IOW, it really wouldn't be worth the money.

---

That would be my fear too.

posted April 16, 2014 09:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercurian Intellect:
What do you mean the astrologer didn't ask for his birth info? Are you implying that the astrologer tried to predict his birthday by Randi's characteristics? Why would the astrologer do something like that?
Like Randi even said, that should only apply to someone who was born on the date that astrologer used for the chart.

Maybe you're right, but I assumed that it wasn't the case. I guess because I wouldn't think an astrologer trying to prove Astrology would do something as stupid as that.

Also, around the 8:00 mark, Randi said that the astrologer didn't ask for his birth time, but Randi never said anything about the astrologer not asking for his birth date.
So maybe my assumption was correct.

---

Both birthdate *and* time were wrong. Haven't you heard of wikipedia? He's a known personality, so an accurate description of personality characteristics that are widely known wouldn't be that difficult. The whole point of the astrologer's "Horoscope of a Skeptic" presentation was an obvious attempt to discredit his subject. With inaccurate info, date and time! Which makes Randi's job easier than usual, don't you think?

posted April 16, 2014 09:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
He's actually done a lot of good. Like exposing charlatans such as Uri Geller (the spoon bending shyster) and Peter Popoff (the faith healing fraud) who bilk innocent people out of their money. He's shown researchers how to look for magician's tricks. The million is in an account and is legit. All the psychic would have to do is pass scientific scrutiny; so far, none have done any better than chance. Astrology has been tested by other researchers many times. The same result--no better than chance. Astrology works, but how it does so is outside the realm of science. There is no mechanism in physics that can explain how bodies that distant can affect human beings on Earth.

---

posted April 16, 2014 11:08 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by page one:
I couldn't agree more. And it's disturbing that people on this board like Pixie Jane actually *resent* him for outing fakes. Do they really need to believe in something that badly?

---

I don't resent him for outing fakes, I resent him for BEING one...and for the same reason I resent fake psychics. He's a fraud and a liar, and they should be exposed, whether they claim to be a psychic or a debunker.

Where I first came across his deceit was in a book neutral on the subject of the paranormal, about claims, skeptic explanations, rebuttals, and the like. It did not take sides, it simply informed. And while detailing some hoax on fairies (a famous one) it listed the history and how James Randi "exposed" it. While it was a hoax it was done different than how James Randi "proved" it (IIRC, James Randi "proved" it was done with strings through a hoax of his when in actuality they'd used hatpins). One of the girls (who laughed when she heard how James Randi debunked her--probably because she realized Randi was as much a fraud as she was and enjoyed the irony of it, of his proving her hoax with a hoax of his own) gave the real way they faked it. And that's just one of the reasons I call him a fraud.

posted April 16, 2014 11:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by page one:
I couldn't agree more. And it's disturbing that people on this board like Pixie Jane actually *resent* him for outing fakes. Do they really need to believe in something that badly?

---

Well, in my limited time with Randi (the video Mercuranian Intellect posted comprises about half the time I've watched him, in total) I saw him lie twice. Boldly. He is banking on his audience's lack of familiarity with the subjects at hand, to advance his argument. I can't be duped about homeopathy or astrology because I am so familiar with these two topics.

He could have duped me about other things quite easily, things I am less knowledgeable about. But now that I've been tipped off to his habit of bending the truth for argument's sake, I would research everything he said before believing him.

So why should I trust him to "out" anyone? He has forcefulness and a semblance of logic at his command, but his respect for established facts leaves a lot to be desired. I'd have to see the whole way his "outing" was argued, and the quality of the person he was accusing of charlatanism (a blatant charlatan can be exposed; someone with a true metaphysical awareness can't be.)

posted April 16, 2014 11:20 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:

One of the girls (who laughed when she heard how James Randi debunked her--probably because she realized Randi was as much a fraud as she was and enjoyed the irony of it, of his proving her hoax with a hoax of his own) gave the real way they faked it. And that's just one of the reasons I call him a fraud.

---

posted April 16, 2014 11:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by MorpHnStorM:
Nope, no one will ever win...

---

posted April 16, 2014 11:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
Science can determine the effectiveness of Astrology using the effect of Solar Flares as well as the Gravitational pull of the Moon, but other than that, it is impossible to detect a physical change of state due to the planets.

---

They could prove astrology other ways, though.

It's possible to develop the ability to determine someone's birthday just by engaging with them. I have done this often enough to know it's possible, and others I know can do the same, with greater perception, registering the planets' influence on personalities directly.

Perhaps if enough people cultivated this ability, or if one person could do it with such precision that he or she passed all tests, and could get the attention of science, we might be well on our way.

Sort of like how Daniel Tammet is concretely establishing psychic phenomena through mathematics.

Daniel Tammet: The Boy With The Incredible Brain

But science is not equipped yet, to even categorize, recognize the validity of, and learn from people like Tammet. Science has been too broken-down from years of self-imposed blindness/hyper-skepticism.

posted April 16, 2014 03:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by page one:
Both birthdate *and* time were wrong. Haven't you heard of wikipedia? He's a known personality, so an accurate description of personality characteristics that are widely known wouldn't be that difficult. The whole point of the astrologer's "Horoscope of a Skeptic" presentation was an obvious attempt to discredit his subject. With inaccurate info, date and time! Which makes Randi's job easier than usual, don't you think?

---

I know Randi's date and time were wrong in the "Horoscope of the Skeptic", but I never said that it was correct, now did I?

The astrologer could have got the correct time and date (assuming that he "supposedly" according to you, was never faked out of the actual birth date by Randi), then showed in the chart how and why astrologically, Randi is the way he is.

The astrologer doesn't have to create a chart out of no where by knowing Randi's characteristics, because as people who know Astrology, know there is more to it than something as simple as that. There are aspects that might be present, and then misread it as a certain placement, when in actuality, it was an aspect that was making someone the way they were.
For example, I have Moon quincunx Uranus in the 11th House (or someone may have Moon conjunct Uranus), so an astrologer may predict (not knowing my birth date or time) that I have an Aquarius Moon, when in fact, I don't. See what I mean?

posted April 16, 2014 04:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercurian Intellect:
I know Randi's date and time were wrong in the "Horoscope of the Skeptic", but I never said that it was correct, now did I?

The astrologer could have got the correct time and date (assuming that he "supposedly" according to you, was never faked out of the actual birth date by Randi), then showed in the chart how and why astrologically, Randi is the way he is.

The astrologer doesn't have to create a chart out of no where by knowing Randi's characteristics, because as people who know Astrology, know there is more to it than something as simple as that. There are aspects that might be present, and then misread it as a certain placement, when in actuality, it was an aspect that was making someone the way they were.
For example, I have Moon quincunx Uranus in the 11th House (or someone may have Moon conjunct Uranus), so an astrologer may predict (not knowing my birth date or time) that I have an Aquarius Moon, when in fact, I don't. See what I mean?

The astrologer didn't have to take such a chance over something (Astrology) that Randi doesn't know that much about, because Randi will then dismiss it accordingly.

---

"I know Randi's date and time were wrong in the "Horoscope of the Skeptic", but I never said that it was correct, now did I?"

Then what the hell is your point?

His SKILLS AS AN ASTROLOGER might have been helped a little and the LIKELIHOOD that he might actually make certain errors in his interpretation of certain personality traits diminished by the fact that his SUBJECT, JAMES RANDI, is a KNOWN PERSONALITY. So he has certain clues about him before he ever begins his interpretation.

posted April 16, 2014 04:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
I don't resent him for outing fakes, I resent him for BEING one...and for the same reason I resent fake psychics. He's a fraud and a liar, and they should be exposed, whether they claim to be a psychic or a debunker.

---

posted April 16, 2014 04:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Thanks, iQ! Eloquent, as always.

There's a big difference between solar flares that actually bombard the Earth with radiation and a Planet whose effect on Earth is nominal to nonexistant.

---

posted April 16, 2014 04:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by page one:
"I know Randi's date and time were wrong in the "Horoscope of the Skeptic", but I never said that it was correct, now did I?"

Then what the hell is your point?

His SKILLS AS AN ASTROLOGER might have been helped a little and the LIKELIHOOD that he might actually make certain errors in his interpretation of certain personality traits diminished by the fact that his SUBJECT, JAMES RANDI, is a KNOWN PERSONALITY. So he has certain clues about him before he ever begins his interpretation.

Though I'm glad this astrologer managed to refer to certain aspects as linking to certain traits, making him not a complete hack, even if he got the basic info wrong, even as you keep insisting Randi just gave him the wrong information, well, just because, in spite of the fact that his BIRTH DATE AT LEAST IS PROBABLY PUBLIC INFORMATION, which is why I mentioned wikipedia. I hope I've made what I said in my original post clear to you, because I'm not responding to your obtuse bs again.

---