Trackbacks

• No trackbacks exist for this entry.

Comments

• 6/4/2009 6:55 PM Michael Britt wrote:
  David,
  
  Your interviewee is completely unconvincing. Let me explain why. First, he unfairly characterizes science as being concerned primarily with numbers and reductionism. It's ironic that he uses a metaphor about how scientists study an "eagle in a cage" because this is exactly what he has done with the concept of science. Scientists are NOT always interested in reducing things down to a very specific operational definition and then obtaining data or relying on quantitative techniques. Forget the white coats and the data. A "scientist" strives mainly to be a clear thinker and to set up a fair test of any idea. A fair test is unbiased - it is simply the process of setting up a situation the results of which could either support or not support a prediction.
  
  I can imagine a fair test of Dr. Perry's ideas. It would go like this: let's take this idea of the effects of a "Saturn transit". If I understand this correctly, this "transit" supposedly has certain effects on people. I remember something about people feeling under pressure, or stress, or feeling the need to persevere or be disciplined about something. The first challenge, in my test (I'm sure other scientists could come up with other approaches, but here's my idea) would be to get let's say 3 people who believe that they understand these effects. They would probably have to be astrologers, given what I've heard from this interview, which is not ideal, but I think we could work with it. First it would be good to see if these 3 astrologers can be consistent in their descriptions of what should be the effect of this transit. You could have the astrologers independently read transcripts from a few interviewees who have experienced this "transit". The astrologers should discuss the transcripts and agree on some way to categorize what they have read - just some way to organize the statements that they all agree on. Then you go out and interview 20 people who have just experienced the "transit" and 20 people who have not. It would be best if these interviews were not conducted by astrologers. Then bring these transcripts back to the 3 astrologers and have all three of them read each transcript independently and categorize the statements. Can the three of them accurately identify who had the experience and who didn't?
  
  This would probably all be for naught, because it sounded to me like Dr. Perry would not change his mind no matter what anyone found in a fair test. He's very convinced of his gut feelings - just as many people were convinced that the technique of facilitated communication (in which someone held the hand of an autistic child while that child supposedly wrote sentences on a table) actually works (it doesn't). And that's where scientists have a clear advantage: they are willing to be convinced - to change their minds - not by data, or strict operational definitions, but by fair tests of their ideas.
  
  Michael
  Reply to this
• 2/5/2010 5:39 PM Julia wrote:
  The question I want to hear answered by Dr. Perry, or anyone who says astrology works is what they mean by "work." What is it supposed to DO for you? What is the purpose of convincing people it is valid?
  
  If you're life and personality are defined by the stars at your birth then there's nothing you can do about that! If they are trying to say that knowing who you are is a valuable tool in getting through life. Then I would agree and if some people find astrology a useful way to do that, then fine. But if it doesn't work for me, why try so hard to tell me it should?
  
  If, just for arguments sake, I say astrology is valid, then what effect would that have on my behavior, etc.? (Except that I might go learn astrology and get my chart done). If there is no consensual consequence of deciding whether it's valid or not, then it's really more of a philosophical discussion than a debate about validity.
  
  I'm almost 60 years old and having lived through the 60s and all the rest, I have had more than my share of exposure to (and experimentation with) astrology and other varieties of "alternative" schools of thought. When people ask me whether I believe (and that is the way the question is mostly phrased) in astrology. I answer that it is as valid as any of the myriad systems and languages humans have devised to articulate their subjective experience.
  
  We humans have a deep impulse to articulate, to communicate to each other that which is internal and invisible. We want to feel like other peoples' experience has some relation to ours, that "we're all in this together" somehow, that we are connected and belong to the human family.
  
  Astrology seems to be a very durable system for that expression. But it does not, and doesn't seem to be trying to, predict behavior or events. So there's no need to prove it. What I think is going on is that we live in a time when scientific proof holds tremendous value such that there is a great attraction to gain status by "proving" that which one finds important in one's life.
  
  For whatever reason, Dr. Perry finds astrology meaningful. That's fine and we all have things that work that way for us, whether religion or philosophy, etc. Why he's trying to get it proven is more the question. Thanks again for your work!
  Reply to this
• 3/19/2010 11:14 AM how do i phone ebay wrote:
  Interesting podcast, some bits of it went over my head but I think that it the interview touched on some very important points. Thanks for sharing this with us.
  Reply to this

Leave a comment