• Tavarin@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Peer-review is an incredibly important part of science, one of the most important in fact. So go ahead with your non-peer reviewed, no control “science”, and leave the real science to us scientists.

    • agamemnonymous
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Scientific consensus is determined by peer-review. Peer -reviewed consensus can, and has been down to be false.

      Absolute certainty still isn’t part of science. If it’s 100% certain and not falsifiable, it’s not science by definition. Just like an atom with 7 protons isn’t carbon, by definition. Nitrogen is an important and valid element, but it isn’t carbon.

        • agamemnonymous
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          When you say science do you mean science, or some other thing?

          • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Whatever definition you want.

            Except your control-less astrology report test, because that was certainly not science.

            • agamemnonymous
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Never said it was, only said that the existence of non-vague horoscope was a counter-example against your sweepingly certain statement that all horoscopes are vague.

              Don’t think I haven’t noticed that every time I raise a valid point, you ignore it and try to pivot to a different one.

              • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                And what proof do you have that it was non vague? Did you do a double blind control with a horoscope made for you, and some random ones made for other people, and determine if you could accurately pick out which one was yours?

                So no, your point is not valid because you did not have a control. Without controls to your “experiment” the results are entirely meaningless.

                • agamemnonymous
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I did, actually. I’ve never believed in astrology, and I have generally been of the belief that they are just vague as you’ve said. So when it was insisted I do a full chart, that was part of my conditions. They were all fairly non-vague, their predictions were specific and excluded common personality aspects.

                  The one I chose as closest to my personality description was did in fact correspond to my actual chart.

                  • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Yeah, I’m pretty sure you’re lying now, because you would have brought that up ages ago if that was the case.

                    And in a proper study that was done, that I linked you to, found that with a group of 50 people they were no better able to pick their actual astrology report than random chance. So no, you are still full of shit.

                    What actual science have you done?