Transcript of a Quora discussion with a physicist: (I’m not erasing his name. He posted on Quora using his name connected to his profile.)
This physicist jumped in on one of my astrology articles on Quora.
Ilkka Vuorio
· 23h
You have drawn the correct conclusion. Astrologers are good at talking a lot without really saying anything. Astrology is a pseudoscience, only fools believe in it.
Beth Turnage
· 3h
Dr. Vuorio, since you made the assertion that astrology is a pseudoscience, and on other such answers, you’ve asserted that scientific studies have disproved Astrology, please list the studies that have done so. I’d be very much interested in seeing those.
Reply
Ilkka Vuorio
· 3h
The validity of astrological predictions on marriage and divorce: a longitudinal analysis of Swedish register data – Genus
https://genus.springeropen.com/…/10…/s41118-020-00103-5
Reply
Beth Turnage
· 2h
Thank you for that. It will take some time to review, but I will get back to you. But also, as you, as a scientist knows, one paper does not prove a point, but I’m willing to listen.
Reply
Ilkka Vuorio
· 2h
It was just an example. There are hundreds of papers on the topic.
Reply
Beth Turnage
· 2h
Hundreds?
Reply
Beth Turnage
· 1h
Okay. This analysis is based on sun signs only, and astrologers do not practice relationship astrology in this manner. This study is analogous to newspaper astrology columns. As such, it does not prove a thing about astrology or the practice of astrology, especially the specialty of relationship astrology, which is one specialty I practice with my clients.
Reply
Ilkka Vuorio
· 11m
Scientists have better things to do than debunking astrology from every possible angle.
Reply
Beth Turnage
· 6m
Then, respectfully Dr. Vuorio, scientists who venture an opinion on a subject of which they know nothing should say, “It’s my opinion that astrology is nonsense,” without wrapping that opinion in a mantle of scientific certainty. The true scientific method allows for informed debate.
Reply
Ilkka Vuorio
· 3h
A double-blind test of astrology – Nature
https://www.nature.com/articles/318419a0
Beth Turnage
Carlson has been peer reviewed and found lacking in it’s methods and conclusions:
“Though Carlson claimed that natal astrology performed no better than chance, a number of authoritative sources including Professor Hans Eysenck of London University (1986) [6]have shown that this conclusion was faulty. Recent evidence now shows that the part of the test that was valid (according to Carlson) shows evidence that favours astrology to a statistically significant level in spite of many disadvantages that the astrologers faced.”
Astrology and the Skeptics: An Open Letter to Dr. Rebekah Higgitt. https://astrologyexplored.net/?p=1956
Ilkka Vuorio
· 3h
https://helmuthnyborg.dk/…/07/Publ_2006_Date-of-birth.pdf
Beth Turnage
Ah, this study is based on this premise: A series of articles suggest that subjects born during spring or summer are significantly more intelligent than subjects born during the rest of the year.
Astrologers do not make this claim. We do not base an evaluation on intelligence based on seasons, and just because this study does, it does not relate to astrological principles.
(Note: A special thanks to Robert Currey who provided a rapid-fire analysis of the first paper (which I had not seen.)