(posted on 08-Feb-2000)
I finally got my "Astrology for Skeptics" website up. It's not meant as proof, although I intend to run statistical test later and post the results on this site. Right now, my intention is to provide information about how astrology works and how to do it.
The introductory essay, "Astrology for Skeptics", is meant to clear up misconceptions that I believe skeptics have about astrology. My comments there are based on debates I've had on this board (and the old skeptic's board) since March, 1997. Let me state again for the record that the burden of proof is entirely on astrologers. But skeptics get into trouble when they try to "disprove" astrology because most know nothing about the subject.
Hopefully, these lessons will change that situation. There is nothing mystical inherent in astrology. It's rules and procedures can be learned by almost anyone. The conclusions can be tested.
I would appreciate any comments and critisms. The URL is:
Thank you.
Bob Marks
[Needless to say, Bob's message and his site generated a lot of debate on the board. I think that the following message by Gander is representative of what many of us think]Bob,
You charge a fee for doing charts. (Hey, you put some effort and time into
it.)
You are a skeptic.
You are a libertarian, who believes that people should be protected from fraud by the government.
Question: Should you (hypothetically) come to the conclusion that there is nothing to this, would you feel obligated to return all money collected from former clients PLUS interest?
Question #2: Do you feel any qualms at all about charging for this service BEFORE the proof is in?
Many people on the ADC boards believe that science will someday prove their claims. For them, this is reason enough to not call what they do "fraud".
I think it is laudable (if, personally, to me, a waste of time and effort) to pursue this with the energy that you do. However, whatever results you obtain must be taken with the caveat that you have a vested interest in the outcome...
You've read and contributed enough on this board that we don't have to warn you to be VERY careful of self-delusion.
Peer review, and all that... you know the routine far better than I...
Bob, we've gone round and round before on this board, and I have a lot of problems with the stances you take. But you're a stubborn son-of-a-gun, and that can be a lot of help. Just don't let that hurt the process...
Gander
[Bob's answer, IMHO, is very representative of who Bob Marks is.]Hi Gander,
Do publishers who sell books containing scientific theories that are eventually discredited have to refund the money to everyone who buys the books?
As for proof, I'm operating on the anecdotal evidence I've observed over the years. I did plenty of free readings before I turned professional. People came back and told me about things that came true. Not just something like "Hey, you said I'd get some money and I found a penny!". I mean more like the woman who said I was wrong when I said that her boss would get jealous and turn against her. He called her on the carpet the week I predicted and fired her two months later. What are the odds of something like that happening? This was not an isolated case, but it is not something that is exactly reproducable. Therefore it cannot be routinely duplicated in the lab.
I'm going to aim for statistical studies instead.
As for the danger of self-delusion, why do you think I came to the skeptics board to begin with? I'll do the research. You guys keep me honest.
As for being stubborn, that's just my "luck";-).
Bob Marks