Re: [Pen-l] Jared Diamond and the New Yorker, part 2

[Shane Mage <shmage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 9, 2009, at 12:35 AM, Sabri Oncu wrote:

Shane:

That  astrology's theoretical structure finds no place among the theoretical

structures of the "respectable" sciences in no way negates the fact

that it is, in principle, scientific.  Empirical testing could

invalidate--or (perish the thought) confirm it.

But then, there is the data issue: should it be time-series,
cross-sectional or panel (that is, time-series/cross-sectional)?

If it is time-series or panel, what should be the observation
frequency: yearly, monthly, hourly, every other secondly or shorter or
way longer than yearly?

If it is cross-sectional or panel, how large should be the
cross-section: five persons, 5,000 persons, 5,000,000 persons, the
entire human population currently alive and lived in the past?

How about fitting a two-dimensional Fourier Series to an infinitely
long-infinitely broad data?

The fit would be perfect, but would it explain or predict anything?

Start with something much simpler.  Take fifty matched pairs--one a lottery winner, one a victim of a fatal automobile accident.  Give birth day/time/place and event day/time place for each to 200 professional astrologers (sample size=10,000).  Tell them to identify which was which in each case.  Test the percentage of correct identifications for statistical significance.

Shane Mage

This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it

always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,

kindling in measures and going out in measures."

Herakleitos of Ephesos

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l