MEDIA WATCH - Bad Science 0 1 by Frank Another flawed "study": http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stori ... 130&EDATE= or http://tinyurl.com/22w8kj Frank Piechoski Quote Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:51 pm
2 by Tom I like the remark that "astrology is big business." I wonder what scientific study they used to reach that conclusion. I'll bet all those rich astrologers were shaking in their indoor swimming pools when their butlers brought them that news release. Tom Quote Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:48 pm
Bad Science 3 by mattG It is a stock trick question. If an astrologer is rich it is because he is exploiting the gullible because astrology does not work. If he is poor it proves that astrology does not work otherwise he could win at the races or pick rising shares. Ho hum - at least we are not cloning animal / human hybrids or poisoning animals with overdoses of food supplements Quote Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:05 pm
4 by Tom I couldn't resist. I found a name to write to, but that was not easy as they preferred to receive snail mail. I sent the following off a few minutes ago: ?Many people start their day by reading their horoscope. A smaller number literally run their lives by their horoscopes. An even smaller number consult astrologers and often pay large fees for a ?reading.? In fact, astrology is big business.? Gentlemen: I would like to know precisely what research was done, if any, to validate the above statements. I am particularly interested in the statement that astrology is big business when you claim that small numbers of people run their lives by horoscopes and a smaller number consult astrologers and often pay large fees for a reading. If the numbers are so small, how can astrology be a ?big business?? As for the study, you could have saved yourself a lot of time and money by reading the research of Michel Gauquelin who came to the same conclusion about 50 years ago. Or you could have consulted a legitimate astrologer and he would have agreed that Sun Signs do cannot predict occupations. In short at this point the score is at worst even, but if you read much Gauquelin?s work particularly ?The Mars Effect,? you might be forced to conclude, though his work is not the last word, that Astrology pulled ahead 1 ? 0. That work is about 50 years old as well and despite the protestations and attempts at fraud by ?science,? it has not been refuted. Sincerely, Thomas Callanan I'll let you know if I receive a response Tom Quote Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:07 pm
6 by Frank I had some e-mail exchange with the contact person there yesterday. If you'd like, I'll post the exchange (which is already on some other venues) when I return home this evening. Frank Piechoski Quote Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:01 pm
7 by Tom Sure post it. I didn't know that or I probaby wouldn't have bothered. Tom Quote Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:12 pm
8 by Tom Here is what I got back. It is just dismissive and does not address their claim that astrology is "big business." Thanks for the historical information, I?ll pass it along. Go to www.mediacurves.com and scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the graphic in the lower left-hand corner. The detailed results are there. More than 2,000 consumers provided us with their birth signs and occupations. At least he wrote back Tom Quote Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:05 pm
10 by Tom I used to live in Flemington, NJ, the location of this company. It has become very affluent (since I left) , but it is still mostly rural. The only local paper is the Hunterdon County Democrat which despite its name is not a house organ for a political party. It is a weekly paper with a county wide audience. I doubt any editor would publish a letter and if he did, it would be only for purposes of ridicule. I don't think this company is very influential and if you go to their website there is one discussion titled: "Is Christianity Easy?" So this may be nothing more than a PR group for one or another group of Evangelicals. Let it go. Tom Quote Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:54 pm
11 by aquirata Agree Tom. Better to focus on more important things. Peter Quote Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:10 pm
12 by Tom Like I have nothing better to do today. So I went to the site and looked at the data. I am coming around to my own suggestion that this is not a legitimate research group but a PR group or an advocacy group. I have no problem with that, I just would hope for a little more honesty. Anyway I checked out the details of the astrology study. They compared 12 professions or job titles and distributed them among 12 Sun signs. There are two tables that purport to show all the results of the study. Although Capricorn is missing on one of the tables. http://www.mediacurves.com/Culture/zodiac/Report.pdf What caught my eye was that Mars ruled signs, Aries and Scorpio, are heavily represented in the sales/marketing jobs. If I were to put any stock in this sort of thing I would expect this result. Aries types are assertive and self starters which is what sales requires. But that isn't the point. There are some pretty conspicuous absences from the list of professions. Science is the one that I noticed right away. Religious vocations are also missing. The health care field is over represented in that it gets two groups: medical doctor is one and nurses, pharmacists and similar fields get another. If we lump those two together, Pisces is over represented. Gauquelin limited his studies to the top performers in a field not just occupants and he did not use sun signs when he found a correlation. He used planets and angles. Why am I annoyed by this obvious nonsense? Tom Quote Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:40 pm