army1987 comments on The uniquely awful example of theism - Less Wrong

36 Post author: gjm 10 April 2009 12:30AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (169)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 February 2012 05:59:22PM 1 point [-]

I guess you'd claim that things like forwarding chain letters, belief in homoeopathy or healing crystals or orgone guns, the 'nature is good' fallacy and whatnot aren't common enough.

How about astrology? I had a physics teacher in high school who believed in horoscopes!

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 24 March 2012 08:57:27AM 2 points [-]

So did Brahe, Kepler, and Galileo.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 24 March 2012 11:22:41AM *  0 points [-]

And it's actually sort of difficult to show that the Mars effect isn't anything spooky. [ETA: "spooky" was poor word choice, I just mean "not a statistical artifact", not necessarily anything "supernatural".] That said, I have little idea to what extent modern astrology is descended from legitimate traditions.

Comment author: Dmytry 24 March 2012 11:35:49AM *  1 point [-]

I don't see anything particularly spooky... there's a zillion of things to correlate Mars with, and consequently, assuming null hypothesis there will be things correlated with Mars with supposedly high confidence. After you wait and re-test with new data, you reduce number of those things but the few that remain, you are even more confident in.

Also, one mars year is approximately 2 earth years, and the Mars is in approximately same position relative to Earth (and relative to sun in the sky, i.e. the height for the people born at whenever most people are born) on every second year. The Olympic games are every 4 years. So short term it is even plausible that there might be some actual weak correlation very indirectly caused by this.

Comment author: [deleted] 08 February 2012 01:42:09PM *  1 point [-]

And today, an Italian TV news programme stated, with a straight face, that people with water or fire astrological signs are more likely to be obese than people with earth or air signs (or vice versa, or something like that).

(That wouldn't be completely a-priori-absurd if it was a division of the year in two consecutive six-month periods, as I could buy some kind of story on why (say) people who spent the first few months of extra-uterine life in winter are more likely to be obese, if there were some kind of evidence for it; but Wikipedia tells me that the elements of signs are interleaved around the year, so I can't imagine any explanation whatsoever on how such an effect could be possible.)