Crucifixion Eclipse : The Large Gizāh Pyramid : Nostradamus’ Birthdate at Central Axis of Giza Pyramid :
|[Contact, Search]||World History - Yahoo! - Help|
|: H O M E :|
Why Does U.C. Berkeley Promote an Unscientific Astrology Experiment as Proof that Astrologers are Mentally Insane?
Peer Review by Established Top University in Europe illustrates Shawn Carlson Lied in an Astrological Study and Demonstrates that U.C. Berkeley Professors Indirectly Implement themselves of all of these Charges Against Conservatives -- promulgated by leftists who receive grants from the leftist central government. Thus before the study starts you already know the outcome. Private citizens, freedom lovers, entrepreneurs, global solutionizers, problem solvers, and persons who help the less fortunate are the enemy.
Charges Below Represent Why States Fall: Because Lies Infiltrate the Minds of Children by These False Teachers.
Notice these charges are all against Conservatives. When Reading this peice, just replace conservative for liberal and all ‘claims’ match identically. The Left-Wing Establishment Fulfills all These Charges: Ironic Yes, Sad, Yes, Detrimental to Earth’s Civilization, Yes!
Aristocratic Establishment are Authoritarian ( Elite Professors)
Intolerance of Ambiguity
Mental Rigidity, Dogmatism, Closed – Mindedness
Terror Management Theory
Social Dominance Theory
System Justification Theory
Threat to the Stability of the Social System ( link to news release UCB)
Shawn Carlson, an undergraduate at the time from the University of California, was published in Nature, vol. 318, pp. 419-425 ( December 5 1985) for a double – blind study on the validity of personality traits in astrology. The study was supported by Richard A. Muller, professor of psychics at U.C. Berkeley – and it was generously funded by a congressional research award. From my historical knowledge there has never been one case of an astrologer being funded by any research award whatsoever, although U.C. Berkeley’s website decries that astrologers do not do scientific tests? Carlson reported in his paper he did a dual- choice in his study when in fact he did a three-choice study – thus either tricking his professors and later the world community or his professors were complicit in defrauding the public with junk-propaganda-science. It should be noted many top-astrologers dropped out of the study noting Carlson was already lying to them and had an agenda.
Shawn was a Ph.D. in nuclear-physics graduate at the University of California, Los Angeles from 1989 –1994 ( Adjunct professor of Physics at U.C. San Diego for a short while but left academia to work on a crusade. He went on to form the Society for Amateur Scientists (SAS) and became involved with James Randi Educational Foundation in Fort Lauderdale. His sole purpose in life is to make ‘battles against pseudo science.” ( http://www.sas.org/CarlsonCV.html.). It is his undergraduate unscientific paper that Randi used in his 1990 screed “The Mask of Nostradamus.” Randi promotes it as definitive; therewithal posits the question as if Randi understands anything at all about the scientific method?
The people selected were Berkeley students and general San Francisco natives, most with variances of times of birth of ± 15 minuets or 3 degrees and 15 minuets of astronomical arc. If applying this to a bell curve and factoring in the margin of error, it is about 99.98% margin of error for this statistical test – before the test takes-off at all. That is no where close to being a scientific method to begin with. Nevertheless the astrologer participants that did not leave the study, fearing to get smeared as they were later to find out, predicted that 50% rate could be achieved even with the flawed data.
It should be noted that Berkeley students are not the best crop of humans to do a test like this as noted in the Republican children test – all whom were studied for years and followed left wing Berkeleyeans who surmised that these children were were wimps and reacted when they got older out of fear of closeness to others as opposed to normal kids who were bullies on the kindergarten playground and grew up joining the Democratic Party and joined a union and are upstanding individuals. U.C. Berkeley has some serious psychological problems itself, outside of its inclusive community. In fact, Political conservatives are described as ‘bad’ for society against the ‘good’ which is progressive – which leads to Intolerance of Ambiguity --- a charge poorly argued by many leftwing wackos that are paid by the American tax dollar. The claim of resistance to change is so vague that academia remains throughout history highly leftwing, and thus resistance to change. In fact conservatives are known to take their own money and their own time and help the less fortunate. This is deemed a horrific flaw by the progressive ( left-wing) who believe that an invisible entity of government should pay workers to give of their time and provide them money to help the less fortunate. For a left-wingers to help the less fortunate with their own money and own free time is evil – and you will be belittled by other left wingers. The reason the Catholic Church has survived for 1,000s of years is that this private sector group helps the poor where governments run by atheist and false-professors of Christianity actually never help the poor or the less fortunate. So the standard narrative which is promulgated by the established aristocrats, the left-wing academics is but a continual lie throughout history. As far as resistance to change, the leftwing academia constantly is resistant to change in giving up the privilege and fancied-elaborate-money lifestyle to help the less fortunate. They are the aristocrat, and this is against their promulgated lying narrative of history. They have throughout history been ‘Resistant to Change’ their behavior and help the less fortunate. They are the conservatives that align with the Democratic Party of the United States of America. The professors of major Universities around the world who made over a million dollars and are paid over $100,868 dollars per year as a salary spit on the homeless that they walk by daily.
Shawn Carlson purposely lied about his scientific method to appease his aristocratic suppressor –professors.
A test group of questions of true or false were selected from a reputable California Psychological Profile system and participants answered 480 questions (way too many and too general) to get started. Originally there were hundreds of participants, both astrologers and students but test subjects left the study which resulted in a final total of 83, with a control group of 94; and after these astrologers went through hoops of bizarre diction gymnastics, such terms not frequently used like “psychological- mindedness,” and “achievement via independence,” they probably were quite confused. These astrologers tried their best to work with Carlson, who could not communicate correctly in the discipline of astrology. It should be noted that his paper is quite garbled and confusing – a frequent problem among novices in the field.
Serious Problems in the Scientific Methods Found in Carlson Study on Astrology
An incorrect scientific method was used but not admitted too. This was found out in a peer review. This probably explains why the test came to the same statistical accounting for random chance. 27.67% of the test subjects correctly on the first time identified their chart, whereas the control group was 30-31% meaning statistically random chance was scientifically achieved. Unfortunately this was not a scientific test.
Test questions for astrologers were to find bizarre conceptual words like “ psychological- mindedness, achievement via independence,” or vague catch-all terms were all have like, “responsibility, socialization, good-impression” – extremely subjective and confusing terms attributed to characteristics that almost everyone has anyway. Who does not have a responsibility to some aspect of their life, or for that matter some form of socialization? (http://www.astrodovonation.com/moa/ncgberk.htm ; Internet.
The test was attacked by real scientist astrologers that claimed that 27 % was what one gets on random chance (selection), and this was proven by the control study’s 30% random chance (selection) results by Carlson. The astrologers were correct. Certainly, Carlson would never have been able to get the best astrologers in the world for the study; many are in India, China, Europe, and the Middle East. What factors were used were never disseminated which would be scientific. Were heliacal rising stars used, were correct birth-times observed in every instance, were progressions factored in and what progression was implemented, as there are many? Are there people in the world that do not have some form of ‘responsibility,’ or ‘social ability?’ It was probably Carlson’s aggressive predisposition (or prejudice) which achieved the results he wanted. It is better left to a discussion of a critical analysis coming from European First Tier Ranked Universities which finds Carlson’s work heavily flawed. http://www.theoryofastrology.com
Berkeley’s position on Astrology unfounded and emotive garble
Researchers behave scientifically?
“Scientists do not wait for others to do the research to support or contradict their ideas [ fraud, they must get money first, as Shawn Carlson received for his 99.89 % margin of error statistical astrology validity test proclaimed as definitive! No astrologer has ever received research funds to test astrology, ever! ] they propose. Instead they strive to test their ideas, try to come up with counter arguments and alternatives [ no! all the UC professors I have read all blame Booooooshees for all wrong things in life] hypothesis, and ultimately, give up ideas when warranted by the evidence. Astrologers, on the other hand, do not seem to rigorously examine the astrological ideas they accept. [ a failure sentence, who is the acceptant?] As reflected by their minimal level of research in the field, they rarely try to test their arguments in fair ways [ fair ways? there is a prejudice utterance!] In addition, they astrological community largely ignores evidence that contradicts its ideas.”[ What evidence? All we have is Shawn Carlson, not an astrologer who selected people from Berkeley students ( young) and general San Francisco natives, most with variances of times of birth of ± 15 minuets or 3 degrees and 15 minuets of astronomical arc. If applying this to a bell curve and factoring in the margin of error, it is about 99.98% margin of error for this statistical test. This is no way scientific at all. Nor was this paper peer reviewed or re analyzed, until a professor at Göttingen University corrected the flaws on this undergraduate and concluded that there was a validity to the astrologer participants that took part in their craft. Unfortunately for this very-wide publicized unscientific paper it reaches about 500+ Google pages attributed to every opponent of scientific astrology – including U.C. Berkeley.
Test questions for astrologers were to find bizarre conceptual words like “ psychological- mindedness” and “achievement via independence,” or vague catch-all characteristics we all have like, “responsibility, socialization, good-impression” – extremely subjective and confusing terms attributed to characteristics that almost everyone has anyway. Who does not have a responsibility to some aspect of their life, or for that matter some form of socialization? (http://www.astrodovonation.com/moa/ncgberk.htm ; Internet.
The test was attacked by real scientist astrologers that claimed that 27 % was what one gets on random chance (selection), and this was proven ironically by Carlson’s control study’s 30% random chance (selection). However, this fallacy does not persuade U.C. Berkeley from promoting “[...] astrologers do not take the same critical perspective on their own astrological ideas.” – UC Berkeley, unattributed screed of prejudice.
Astrology: Is it scientific? in “Understanding Science, how science really works,” accessed 6 September 2010, available from
The critical analysis coming from European First Tier Ranked Universities finds Carlson’s work heavily flawed. http://www.theoryofastrology.com
Journal of Scientific Exploration (vol. 23.2) by Suitbert Ertel, professor of psychology at Göttingen University debunked the study by Carlson then undergraduate of the University of California, Berkeley – “Appraisal of Shawn Carlson’s Renowned Astrology Tests.” It is safe to assume that Carlson had no understanding of the stringent and diverse discipline nor the difficult contacts with European celebrated astrologers. “Ertel finds that, when correctly analyzed, according to the method that Carlson initially states then changes, the study actually provides support for Astrology.” (Kenneth McRitchie, Reprisal of 1985 Carlson Study finds support for astrology, in ‘Center of the Universe at the Edge of the World, 11 July 2009, accessed 6 September 2010, available from http://theworldedge.blogspot.com/2009/07/reappraisal-of-1985-carlson-study-finds.html ; Internet.
cf. Joseph E. Vidmar, Ed. D, A Comprehensive Review of the Carlson Astrology Experiments, published in Correlations, a referred journal of research in astrology, Vol. 26 (1) 2008, available from http://www.astronlp.com/Carlson Astrology Experiment.html