![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/astrologyexplored.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/Screen-Shot-2023-03-16-at-10.50.40-AM.png?resize=640%2C336&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
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.) <\/p>\n Beth Turnage 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 \u00b7 23h … Continue reading
\nThis physicist jumped in on one of my astrology articles on Quora.
\nIlkka Vuorio
\n \u00b7 23h
\nYou 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.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n \u00b7 3h
\nDr. Vuorio, since you made the assertion that astrology is a pseudoscience, and on other such answers, you\u2019ve asserted that scientific studies have disproved Astrology, please list the studies that have done so. I\u2019d be very much interested in seeing those.
\nReply
\nIlkka Vuorio
\n \u00b7 3h
\nThe validity of astrological predictions on marriage and divorce: a longitudinal analysis of Swedish register data – Genus
\nhttps:\/\/genus.springeropen.com\/…\/10…\/s41118-020-00103-5
\nReply
\nBeth Turnage
\n \u00b7 2h
\nThank 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\u2019m willing to listen.
\nReply
\nIlkka Vuorio
\n \u00b7 2h
\nIt was just an example. There are hundreds of papers on the topic.
\nReply
\nBeth Turnage
\n \u00b7 2h
\nHundreds?
\nReply
\nBeth Turnage
\n \u00b7 1h
\nOkay. 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.
\nReply
\nIlkka Vuorio
\n \u00b7 11m
\nScientists have better things to do than debunking astrology from every possible angle.
\nReply
\nBeth Turnage
\n \u00b7 6m
\nThen, respectfully Dr. Vuorio, scientists who venture an opinion on a subject of which they know nothing should say, \u201cIt\u2019s my opinion that astrology is nonsense,\u201d without wrapping that opinion in a mantle of scientific certainty. The true scientific method allows for informed debate.
\nReply
\nIlkka Vuorio
\n \u00b7 3h
\nA double-blind test of astrology – Nature
\nhttps:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/318419a0
\nBeth Turnage
\nCarlson has been peer reviewed and found lacking in it\u2019s methods and conclusions:
\n“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.”
\nAstrology and the Skeptics: An Open Letter to Dr. Rebekah Higgitt. https:\/\/astrologyexplored.net\/?p=1956
\nIlkka Vuorio
\n \u00b7 3h
\nhttps:\/\/helmuthnyborg.dk\/…\/07\/Publ_2006_Date-of-birth.pdf<\/a>
\nBeth Turnage
\nAh, 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.
\nAstrologers 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.
\n(Note: A special thanks to Robert Currey who provided a rapid-fire analysis of the first paper (which I had not seen.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"