Sunday, January 30, 2011 ~ Have your say...

Pyramid Schemes Explained (And Why They Are A Scam)

, , , , , , , ,

Pyramid Schemes: An Impossible Way to Make Money

At some point in your life, you were probably approached by a friend or acquaintance who just discovered an incredible investment or business opportunity, and said that you, yes you, could join him and reap the benefits. All you have to do is pay your buddy $100, and then get 6 other people to do the same for you – for a cool $500 return on your investment! You would tell your recruits to do the same thing – to each recruit 6 more people. And on and on it would go. At this point, your skeptical senses should be tingling and you should ask yourself, "This sounds too good to be true. Could it be a pyramid scheme?"

I'm often asked for a "practical" use of skepticism and critical thought. Well, here's a great example where skepticism can save you money and time. Pyramid schemes are a scam, plain and simple. Worried that your investment opportunity is a pyramid scheme? Read on, my friend.

What is a pyramid scheme?

There are two kinds of pyramid schemes: naked, and product based. A pyramid scheme works well for only a very small number of people at the top of the pyramid. The main characteristic of a pyramid scheme is that is that people only make money by recruiting other members. The number of people involved in the scheme grows geometrically, so that the base of the pyramid becomes very wide, very quickly.

In a naked pyramid scheme, there isn't even a product. The formula for "success" is as follows:
  • One person recruits 6 other people to participate in the "wonderful opportunity"
  • The 6 new recruits each pay the recruiter $100
  • The recruiter now tells them to recruit 6 more people and do the same
  • So if each recruit gets someone new, they will each end up with $500 from a very cool $100 investment.
So what's the problem? Pyramid schemes become unsustainable very quickly.

For example, assume the 6 new recruits each find 6 more people to make their $500. Now these newer recruits will need to find 216 people so they can each make their $500. Assume again, for the sake of argument, that these 216 newest recruits are successful. They have to find 1,296 people just so they can each make their $500.  At this point, you're at the size of a small town, and at the next level, 7,776 people are needed. Pretty quickly, you run out of people to find as new recruits, and the pyramid collapses since everyone at the bottom has lost their investment... By level 11, you require just about every person in the United States to become a recruit, and by level 13, you've exceeded the Earth's population! The larger the initial group of people, the less levels needed until the pyramid collapses.

In a product based pyramid scheme, it's the same idea, except that it's masked as a "sales" opportunity, usually of a bogus product:
  • A distributor recruits 6 salespeople who each pay $100 for a starter kit of products to sell.
  • The distributor gets 10 percent of each starter kit that's sold.
  • The distributor also gets a cut of 10 percent of each product that any of the recruits sell (including additional starter kits).
  • The recruits are told that the fastest way to make money isn't by selling products, but by recruiting more people to buy starter kits (sound familiar yet?)
  • The people at the top of the pyramid get commissions from everyone in their downline (the people below them in the pyramid).
Usually, the products have such a low margin, that it's nearly impossible to make a profit without getting more recruits... and we we know what happens then. By the time you're at the 12th level of the pyramid, you need to recruit 2 billion people so that everyone can make back their money. At the ninth level, you'd need 13 billion people... which is almost twice the population of the Earth.

Now, take a light break before we get into the mathematical proof...

Michael Scott from The Office gets himself into a pyramid scheme, and, as usual, hilarity ensues:



The folks over a FraudSquad have made a short video to help explain pyramid schemes:

Mathematical Proof that Pyramid Schemes Are A Scam

For simplicity, assume there is one person on top of the pyramid and this person asks for a fixed amount of money, say $1, to a second person, with the promise that if he convinces two more people to join and pay the entrance fee of $1, he will get $2 which would double up the initial investment.

At this point the first two people have made $1 dollar each. The other two people have to recruit two people each in order to double up their money. Now, we're at the fourth level of the pyramid, where 1+1+2+4=8 people are involved in the scheme.

As the pyramid grows and more levels are added, the number of people involved increases geometrically, so that at level n there will be 1+1+2+...+2n-2 persons in the scheme, and the bottom 2n-2 have to recruit 2n-1 new people in order to receive money. For example, when n = 34 (ie, there are 34 levels in the pyramid), the number of people invovled is 234-1 or 8,589,934,592 people, which again, is larger than the population on Earth (I chose n = 34 levels to illustrate that point).

This is what makes the scheme fraudulent: since the amount of people involved increases geometrically, the pyramid collapses because there are no more people to recruit and the people at the bottom of the pyramid all lose their initial "investment".

This table shows how many new paying members must be recruited at each level for programs (schemes) that require each new member to recruit 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 new members. (data courtesy http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/MLM_pyramid.php ).  Red cells indicate the times when it's literally impossible for the scheme to work, as too many people are involved.  Orange indicates the instances where it's theoretically possible, but realistically impossible (since no organizations exist with that kind of magnitude.  Yellow cells indicate that it's possible, but you'd have to be an incredible salesperson to succeed... and be part of a large international organization...


Level
 Number of new members each level must recruit to be profitable. (columns indicate the numbers for requirements of recruiting 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 new members)
4
5
6
7
8
1
4
5
6
7
64
2
16
25
36
49
512
3
64
125
216
343
4096
4
256
625
1,296
2401
32,768
5
1,024
3125
7,776
16,807
262,144
6
4,096
15,625
46,656
117,649
2,097,152
7
16,384
78,125
279,936
823,543
16,777,216
8
65,536
390,625
1,679,616
5,764,801
134,217,728
9
262,144
1,953,125
10,077,696
40,353,607
1,073,741,824
10
1,048,576
9,765,625
60,466,176
282,475,249
8,589,934,592
11
4,194,304
48,828,125
362,797,056
1,977,326,743
68,719,476,736
12
16,777,216
244,140,625
2,176,782,336
13,841,287,201

13
67,108,864
1,220,703,125
13,060,694,016





Pyramid Scheme Statistics:
  • 88 percent of the members will be on the bottom level of most pyramid schemes will lose their investment.
  • In a naked (productless) pyramid scheme, 90.4 percent of people lose their investment.
  • In product-based pyramid schemes, 99.88 percent lose their investment.

What About Multi-Level Marketing Schemes?

Multi-level marketing (MLM) is similar to pyramid schemes in that, to be successful, you have to recruit new members from your network and form a downline. In MLMs, you earn money in two ways: by selling a product, and/or by receiving commissions from the sales of your downline. MLMs, although subject to constant debate, are legal, however, pyramid schemes are not. An example of a popular MLM is Amway Corp.

Even though MLMs are legal, they still provide a terribly low income for most people. Several sources have commented on the income level of specific MLMs or MLMs in general:
  • The Times: "The Government investigation claims to have revealed that just 10 per cent of Amway's agents in Britain make any profit, with less than one in ten selling a single item of the group's products.
  • Scheibeler, a high level "Emerald" Amway member: "UK Justice Norris found in 2008 that out of an IBO [Independent Business Owners] population of 33,000, 'only about 90 made sufficient incomes to cover the costs of actively building their business.' That's a 99.7 percent loss rate for investors."
  • Newsweek: based on Mona Vie's own 2007 income disclosure statement "fewer than 1 percent qualified for commissions and of those, only 10 percent made more than $100 a week."
  • Business Students Focus on Ethics: "In the USA, the average annual income from MLM for 90% MLM members is no more than US $5,000, which is far from being a sufficient means of making a living (San Lian Life Weekly 1998)"
  • USA Today: "While earning potential varies by company and sales ability, DSA says the median annual income for those in direct sales is $2,400."In an October 15, 2010 article, it was stated that documents of a MLM called Fortune reveal that 30 percent of its representatives make no money and that 54 percent of the remaining 70 percent only make $93 a month.

How To Avoid Being Sucked Into A Pyramid Scheme:
  • Be skeptical, be careful, don't let a sales pitch get you so excited that you can't even think straight.
  • Get an unbiased opinion from a family member or friend before jumping in.
  • Research the "investment opportunity", make sure the company is legitimate.  Verify the claims - check the organizations track record.
  • Make sure you fully understand the business strategy. Don't jump in because it sounds too good to be true, because it probably is too good to be true.

The Ironic Conclusion

Pyramid schemes are a scam, plain and simple. Multi-level marketing schemes are barely legal, and offer very little return for their required investment of cash and time.
So, did you find this article helped to improve your understanding of pyramid schemes? If so, do your friends and family a favor by sharing this information with at least ten of them. Then ask each of them to share it with ten more people, and suggest they tell each of them to share it with ten more, and . . . .



References:

Thursday, January 20, 2011 ~ Have your say...

10 Myths and Misconceptions About Evolution

, , , , , ,

Evolution VS Creationism:  How many times have you heard those words bundled together? 

Although there is no real debate in the scientific community with respect to evolution, creationists and “IDers” (those who believe in Intelligent Design, a fancy name for “creationism”) attempt to stir the pot in the quest to find the origin of life.

The Skeptic’s Society has once again created a wonderful ePamphlet that is available for download on their site.  It tackles the myths and misconceptions surrounding evolution, and is titled:  “Top 10 Myths About Evolution (And How We Know It Really Happened)”.

The myths include:

1)  If humans evolved from apes, why are apes still around?  (incidentally, this topic has been reviewed in a previous article on Relatively Interesting, called “If Humans Evolved From Apes, 
Why Do Apes Still Exist?”)


Humans, apes, and monkeys are only distant evolutionary “cousins.” We come not from apes but from a common ancestor that was neither ape nor human that lived millions of years in the past. In fact, during the last seven million years many human-like species have evolved; some examples include Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo neanderthalensis. All of these went extinct at different times, leaving just us to share the planet with a handful of other primates.


2)  There are too many gaps in the fossil record for evolution to be true.

In fact, there are lots of intermediate fossils. Archaeopteryx, for example, is one of the earliest known fossil birds with a reptilian skeleton and feathers. There is now evidence that some dinosaurs had hair and feathers. Therapsids are the intermediates between reptiles and mammals, Tiktaalik is an extinct lobe-finned fish intermediate to amphibians, there are now at least six intermediate fossil stages in the evolution of whales, and in human evolution there are at least a dozen intermediate fossil stages since hominids branched off from the great apes six million years ago. Considering the exceptionally low probability that a dead plant or animal will fossilize it is remarkable we have as many fossils as we do. First the dead animal has to escape the jaws of scavengers. Then is has to be buried under the rare circumstances that will cause it to fossilize instead of decay. Then geological forces have to somehow bring the fossil back to the surface to be discovered millions of years later by the handful of paleontologists looking for them.

3)  If evolution happened over millions of years, why doesn’t the fossil record show gradual change?

Sudden changes in the fossil record are not missing evidence of gradualism; they are extant evidence of punctuation. Species are stable over long periods of time and so they leave plenty of fossils in the strata while in their stable state. The change from one species to another, however, happens relatively quickly (on a geological time scale) in a process called punctuated equilibrium. One species can give rise to a new species when a small “founder” group breaks away and becomes isolated from the ancestral group. This new founder group, as long as it remains small and detached, may experience relatively rapid change (large populations are genetically stable). The speciational change happens so rapidly that few fossils are left to record it. But once changed into a new species, the individuals will retain their phenotype for a long time, leaving behind many well-preserved fossils. Millions of years later this process results in a fossil record that records mostly stability. The punctuation is there in between the equilibrium.

4)  No one has ever seen evolution happen.

Evolution is a historical science confirmed by the fact that so many independent lines of evidence converge to this single conclusion. Independent sets of data from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, molecular biology, developmental biology, embryology, population genetics, genome sequencing, and many other sciences each point to the conclusion that life evolved. Creationists demand “just one fossil transitional form” that shows evolution. But evolution is not proved through a single fossil. It is proved through a convergence of fossils, along with a convergence of genetic comparisons between species, and a convergence of anatomical and physiological comparisons between species, and many other lines of inquiry. (In fact we can see evolution happen—especially among organisms with short reproductive cycles that are subject to extreme environmental pressures. Knowledge of the evolution of viruses and bacteria is vital to medical science.)

5)  Science claims that evolution happens by random chance. 

Natural selection is not “random” nor does it operate by “chance.” Natural selection preserves the gains and eradicates the mistakes. To illustrate this, imagine a monkey at a
typewriter. In order for the monkey to type the first 13 letters of Hamlet’s soliloquy by chance, it would take 2613 number of trials for success. This is 16 times as great as the total number of seconds that have elapsed in the lifetime of the solar system. But if each correct letter is preserved and each incorrect letter eradicated, the phrase “tobeornottobe” can be “selected for” in only 335 trials, or just seconds in a computer program. Richard Dawkins defines evolution as “random mutation plus nonrandom cumulative selection.” It is the cumulative selection that drives evolution. The eye evolved from a single, light sensitive spot in a cell into the complex eye of today not by chance, but
through thousands of intermediate steps, each preserved because they made a better eye. Many of these steps still exist in nature in simpler organisms.

6)  Only an intelligent designer could have made something as complex as the eye.

The anatomy of the human eye shows that it is anything but “intelligently designed.” It is built upside down and backwards, with photons of light having to travel through the cornea, lens, aqueous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells, before reaching the light sensitive rods and cones that convert
the light signal into neural impulses, which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns. For optimal vision, why would an intelligent designer have built an eye upside down?

7)  Evolution is "only a theory".

All branches of science are based on theories, which are grounded in testable hypothesis and explain a large and diverse body of facts about the world. A theory is considered robust if it consistently predicts new phenomena that are subsequently observed. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are explanatory ideas about those data. Constructs and other nontestable statements are not a part of science. The theory of evolution meets all the criteria of good science, as determined by Judge William Overton in the Arkansas creationism trial:

• It is guided by natural law.
• It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law.
• It is testable against the empirical world.
• Its conclusions are tentative.
• It is testable and falsifiable.

If you can find fossil mammals in the same geological strata as trilobites then evolution would be falsified. No one has ever found such contradictory data.

8)  Evidence for human evolution has turned out to be fake, frauds, or fanciful.

Eager to discredit evolution, creationists ignore hominid fossil discoveries and cherry pick examples of hoaxes and mistakes in the belief that mistakes in science are a sign of weakness. This is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of science, which constantly advances by using both its mistakes and the successes. Its ability to build cumulatively on the past is how science progresses. The self-correcting feature of the scientific method is one of its most powerful assets. Hoaxes like Piltdown Man, and honest mistakes like Nebraska Man, Calaveras Man, and Hespero-pithecus, are, in time, corrected. In fact, it wasn’t creationists who exposed these errors, it was scientists who did so. Creationists simply read about the scientific exposé of these errors, and then duplicitously claimed them as their own. Piltdown Man and backwards? This “design” only makes sense if natural
selection built eyes from available materials, and in the particular configuration of the ancestral organism’s pre-existing organic structures. The eye shows the pathways of evolutionary history, not intelligent design.

9)  The second law of thermodynamics proves that evolution is impossible.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed, isolated systems. Since the Earth receives a constant input of energy from the sun—it is an open-dissipative system—entropy may decrease and order increase (though the sun itself is running down in the process). Thus, the Earth is not strictly a closed system and life may evolve without violating natural law. As long as the sun is burning, life may continue thriving and evolving, just like automobiles may be prevented from rusting, burgers can be heated in ovens, and all manner of things in apparent violation of Second Law entropy may continue. But as soon as the sun burns out, entropy will take its course and life on Earth will cease.

10)  Evolution can’t account for morality.

As a social primate species we evolved a deep sense of right and wrong in order to accentuate and reward reciprocity and cooperation, and to attenuate and punish excessive selfishness and free riding. As well, evolution created the moral emotions that tell us that lying, adultery, and stealing are wrong because they destroy trust in human relationships that depend on truth-telling, fidelity, and respect for property. It would not be possible for a social primate species to survive without some moral sense. On the constitution of human nature is built the constitutions of human societies.

Bonus myth (not in the pdf):   “Believing” in evolution is no different than believing in any faith based religion.

I think this is more of an error in semantics when using the word “belief or believe”.  For example, I don’t “believe” in evolution.  I accept evolution because there is a convergence of evidence in the scientific community that indicates that evolution is a completely viable theory to explain the diversity of life.

I find it interesting to observe the debate between evolutionists and creationists.  The myths listed above invariably come up in many discussions, and the creationist will cling to some obscure anomaly, thinking that this one “missing piece” can bring down the entire theory.  Since one fact does not prove a theory, one anomaly does not disprove it either.  Again, it’s the convergence of data that makes a theory sound.

In any case, I highly recommend the aforementioned download, as it can be used as a plain-English, simple way to defend evolution against its myths and misconceptions.


References:
www.skeptic.com

Thursday, January 13, 2011 ~ Have your say...

Astrology and Horoscopes Debunked

, , , , ,

Horoscopes and Astrology Debunked

Over 2300 years ago, the Babylonians came up with the idea that the gods lived among the stars and other celestial objects, and were able to impose their will on humanity by controlling the destinies of individuals and nations alike.  The Babylonians divided the sky into 12 “slices”:  which we now know as the signs of the zodiac… Taurus, Pisces, etc.  There are many variations of astrology, but they are all founded upon the idea that celestial objects can influence a person’s personality and destiny.

Today, according to a Gallup poll, 25% of American believes in Astrology.   In this article, we’ll investigate why horoscopes and astrology sometimes appear to be correct by reviewing the concept of subjective validation, the Forer Effect, and Gauquelin’s famous horoscope experiment; we’ll take a look at what an astronomer has to say about astrology;  we’ll review some of the logical issues with astrology; and finally, we’ll take a look at how easy it is to debunk horoscopes yourself.

Subjective Validation and the Forer Effect

“Subjective validation” occurs when two unrelated or random events are perceived to be related because a belief, expectancy, or hypothesis demands a relationship. Thus, people find a connection between the perception of their personality and the contents of their horoscope.

The concept of subjective validation was put to the test in 1948 by psychologist Bertram R. Forer.  Forer gave a personality test to each of his students. Afterward, he told his students they were each receiving a unique personality analysis that was based on the test's results, and to rate their analysis on a scale of 0 (very poor) to 5 (excellent) on how well it applied to themselves.
The analysis presented to the students was as follows:

You have a great need for other people to like and admire you. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. Security is one of your major goals in life.

The trick?  In reality, each student received the exact same analysis:  On average, the rating was 4.26/5 (that is, the students found their “personal” analysis to be 85% accurate).  It was only after the ratings were turned in was it revealed that each student had received identical copies assembled by Forer from various horoscopes. 

As can be seen from the profile analysis, there are a number of statements that are vague and could apply equally to anyone. These statements later became known as Barnum statements, after P.T. Barnum, who used them in his performances, allegedly stating "there's a sucker born every minute."

Later studies have found that subjects give higher accuracy ratings if the following are true:
    * the subject believes that the analysis applies only to him or her (for example, a horoscope)
    * the subject believes in the authority of the evaluator (for example, a psychic)
    * the analysis lists mainly positive traits (for example, most daily horoscopes)

Guaquelin’s Horoscope Experiment

In another experiment, the famous French Astrologer, Michael Gauquelin, offered free horoscopes to any reader of Ici Paris, if they would give feedback on the accuracy of his supposedly "individual" analysis. He wanted to scientifically test the profession of astrology. As with Forer’s experiment, there was a trick:  he sent out thousands of copies of the same horoscope to people of various astrological signs - and 94% of the readers replied that his reading was very accurate and insightful.

What they didn't know was that the horoscope was that of a local mass murderer, Dr. Petiot, who had admitted during his trial that he had killed 63 people.   This is clearly another case of subjective validation where subjects focus on the hits of some general analysis that’s supposed to be unique to them.

An Astronomer’s Opinion
So what does science have to say about astrology?  Phil Plait (a veritable astronomer, not astrologer) summarizes his scientific opinions as follows:
  • There is no force, known or unknown, that could possibly affect us here on Earth the way astrologers claim.  Known forces weaken too fast, letting one source utterly dominate (the Moon for gravity, the Sun for electromagnetism).  An unknown force would allow asteroids and extrasolar planets to totally overwhelm the nearby planets.
  • Like psychics, astrologers tend to rely on human’s ability to remember “hits” and forget ”misses” – a form of selective bias.  Even an accurate predictions may be due to simple chance.
  • Study after study has shown that claims and predictions made by astrologers have no merit. They are indistinguishable from chance, which means astrologers cannot claim to have some ability to predict anyone’s life's path or destiny.
  • There is harm in astrology.  It weakens people's ability to rationally look at the world, an ability we need now more than ever.
Without going into further detail, I highly recommend reading the full article on his website.

Logical problems with horoscopes and astrology:
·   
1)  Since the Earth spin drifts slightly, the constellations shift by at 1 degree every 72 years.  Over time, roughly 2000 years, the signs of the zodiac actually get shifted over by one.  So what’s your sign?  It should actually be shifted one over from what you think it is…  that is, you should be reading the horoscope from the star sign before yours!

2)  Horoscopes are cast from the time of birth, not from the time of conception.  What is considered the time of birth?  When the water breaks?  When the head appears?  When the feet are out?  What about a c-section?  You would think that the planets would begin their influence on the unborn fetus for the duration of its development.

3)  When you read your horoscope, you’re sharing it with roughly 1/12th of the world’s population. Doesn’t it seem strange that so many people from across the entire planet should share the same fate on any given day?

4)  Why are people born on the same day each year so different?  Surely, if the gods or planets or whatever had some sort of true influence, then anyone born on the same day each year should be very, very similar.

5)  The traditional planets of our solar system (i.e. none of the recently discovered planetary candidates), were named after Roman gods. This assignment was completely arbitrary. There might have been some logic behind it (Mars is red, war has blood, etc.), but overall there is no real reason to think that just because Venus was named after the goddess of love, that it should hold any sway over one’s relationships. If the “effects" of the planets on people, had any real relationship to the planets themselves, then Venus should be the ruler of bad gas, not love.

6)  Many astrological terms are holdovers from a time when the Earth was believed to be the center of the universe.  We are clearly not at the centre of the universe.

7)  What about Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, which were only discovered within the past 250 years?  In ancient times, these outer planets were unobservable with the naked eye. Astrologer’s based their system and equations upon the seven planets they believed revolved around the Earth.  If the position of the planets has an influence upon human behavior and events, then how could any of the beliefs have been correct, if these celestial objects were missing from the “equation”?

8)  Here’s a logical fallacy:  the appeal to tradition.  Just because lots of people practice a tradition, like astrology, says nothing of its viability.  Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. For example, many people during the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number of believers said nothing at all about the actual cause of disease.

Most importantly, none of the detailed statistical studies that have looked at astrology have found any merit in it. For example, a psychologist from Michigan State University, Bernard Silverman, looked at 2,978 married couples and 478 couples who divorced. He found absolutely no correlation between which couples divorced, and which couples were born under alleged "incompatible" signs.

A Comprehensive Study Measuring the Performance of Astrology and Astrologers

Geoffrey Dean and Ivan W. Kelly’s report “Is Astrology Relevant to Consciousness and Psi?” looked at the efficacy of astrology noted and concluded the following:
  • A large-scale test of persons born less than five minutes apart found no hint of the similarities predicted by astrology.
  • Meta-analysis of more than forty controlled studies suggests that astrologers are unable to perform significantly better than chance even on the more basic tasks such as predicting extraversion.
  • More specifically, astrologers who claim to use psychic ability perform no better than those who do not.
“Our concern in this article has been to measure the performance of astrology and astrologers. A large-scale test of time twins involving more than one hundred cognitive, behavioural, physical and other variables found no hint of support for the claims of astrology. Consequently, if astrologers could perform better than chance, this might support their claim that reading specifics from birth charts depends on psychic ability and a transcendent reality related to consciousness. But tests incomparably more powerful than those available to the ancients have failed to find effect sizes beyond those due to non-astrological factors such as statistical artifacts and inferential biases.”

Debunking Horoscopes and Astrology Yourself

It should be easy enough for anyone to debunk horoscopes or astrology.  All you need to do is take a sample horoscope for the same sign on the same day across various networks.  If horoscopes are legit, then all five horoscopes should be in line with each other – giving the same type of advice to their followers.  Below, you’ll find a small sample for my sign, Taurus, for December 20th, 2010: 

Keep in mind, this horoscope applies to roughly 583 million people across the planet (taking a quick estimation of the number of people that are Taurus on Earth)

Horoscope #1:  From www.horoscope.com
“You need bigger and longer hugs than usual today, Taurus. A powerful force is moving through your life and trying to shake things up. Don't stoop to the level of petty argument and verbal sparring. The more you resist the opposition, the more stubborn and unwieldy the situation becomes. Make sure you have a good hold on your emotions before you leave the house.”
Horoscope #2:  From www.theglobeandmail.com
“Be careful what you agree to over the next two or three days because the approaching lunar eclipse will blur the line between fact and fantasy. This is not a good time to be reckless with your money, or your reputation.“
Horoscope #3:  From http://www.spiritnow.com/horoscopes (Sylvia Browne’s site)
“Although the fun element will be lacking almost from start to finish, this is certainly a useful day. Don't be surprised if you notice some very tiny changes over an ongoing matter. These nudging or very slight improvements might not be much to celebrate, but they will indicate further improvements to come!”

Horoscope #4:  From www.nationalpost.com
“Stay on top of your bank account and your bills today because something unexpected might be taking place. This could affect inheritances, shared property, insurance matters, or anything you hold jointly with others. Make sure you aren't overdrawn. (Nobody likes surprises like that.)”

Horoscope #5:  From www.astrology-online.com
“Focus on your domestic scene. Get together with friends or relatives. Calm down and take a step back. You can't win and they won't listen. “

In this very small sample set, it’s clear that they have nothing in common – except that the two Canadian newspapers (the Globe and Mail and the National Post) both reference “money”… but given that the holidays were right around the corner, “money” was on everyone’s mind already, so I will discount that statement as an appeal to the masses.

Follow Up: 
I deliberately paid close attention to each of my 5 horoscopes for December 20th, and nothing came true.  I focused on my domestic scene – no issues.  I stayed on top of my bank accounts – no issues.  There were no “slight improvements” to note.  I didn’t need bigger or longer hugs.

Conclusion:  There is no legitimate scientific evidence to support astrology and horoscopes.

Why do 25% of Americans, despite the lack of evidence, continue to believe in Astrology and horoscopes?  "Many people quite simply just want to believe," says Brian Cronk, a professor of psychology at Missouri Western State University. "The human brain is always trying to determine why things happen, and when the reason is not clear, we tend to make up some pretty bizarre explanations."

Horoscopes and astrology are for fun, period.  If you enjoy reading them and you’re a fan of subjective validation, and you want to spend your hard-earned disposable income on books, 1-900 numbers, and readings, then by all means, go ahead.  But don’t claim astrology real, and don’t claim it’s science.  And by all means, don’t let your horoscope affect important life decisions – there’s a reason why websites and 1-900 numbers have a disclaimer stating that their “advice” is “for entertainment purposes only”.



And if you still think there's some merit behind horoscopes and astrology, watch this video:


 
References:
http://skepdic.com/astrology.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/12/16/1266452.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinscience
http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf
  ^ Marks, David F (2000). The Psychology of the Psychic (2 ed.). Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. pp. 41. ISBN 1573927988. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Psychology-of-the-Psychic/David-F-Marks/e/9781573927987/?itm=1. 
  ^ Forer, B.R. (1949). "The fallacy of personal validation: A classroom demonstration of gullibility". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology (American Psychological Association) 44 (1): 118–123. doi:10.1037/h0059240. 
  ^ Dickson, D.H.; Kelly, I.W. (1985). "The 'Barnum Effect' in Personality Assessment: A Review of the Literature". Psychological Reports (Missoula) 57 (1): 367–382. ISSN 0033-2941. OCLC 1318827.
http://searchwarp.com/swa24826.htm
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/your-astronomical-sign.html
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/etc/horoscope-2011-astrology-sign.html
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/etc/091210-americans-believe-god-astrology-and-ghosts.html

Friday, January 7, 2011 ~ Have your say...

Wakefield’s Autism-Vaccine Study Found to be an "Elaborate Fraud"

,

Andrew Wakefield is in deeper, hotter water.


Wakefield’s study fueled the MMR/vaccination/autism debate, and served as trusted evidence for the anti-vaccination movement, led now by Age of Autism, Jenny McCarthy, among others.

An analysis conducted by British journalist Brian Deer, by comparing the reported diagnoses in the paper to actual hospital records, found Wakefield skewed facts about the patients in his study.

In addition, Deer found that despite the claim in Wakefield's paper that the 12 children studied were normal until they had the MMR vaccine, five already had documented developmental problems. Deer also found that all the cases were somehow misrepresented when he compared data from actual medical records and the children's parents reports.

Deer summarizes how Wakefield "fixed the link" between MMR and regressive autism with enterocolitis.  To quote:

"The Lancet paper was a case series of 12 child patients; it reported a proposed "new syndrome" of enterocolitis and regressive autism and associated this with MMR as an "apparent precipitating event." But in fact:

  • Three of nine children reported with regressive autism did not have autism diagnosed at all. Only one child clearly had regressive autism
  • Despite the paper claiming that all 12 children were "previously normal," five had documented pre-existing developmental concerns
  • Some children were reported to have experienced first behavioural symptoms within days of MMR, but the records documented these as starting some months after vaccination
  • In nine cases, unremarkable colonic histopathology results--noting no or minimal fluctuations in inflammatory cell populations--were changed after a medical school "research review" to "non-specific colitis"
  • The parents of eight children were reported as blaming MMR, but 11 families made this allegation at the hospital. The exclusion of three allegations--all giving times to onset of problems in months--helped to create the appearance of a 14 day temporal link
  • Patients were recruited through anti-MMR campaigners, and the study was commissioned and funded for planned litigation"
Deer’s articles can be found online here:
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452
http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2011/01/06/brian-deer-piltdown-medicine-the-missing-link-between-mmr-and-autism/

What do you think it will take for the anti-vaxxers to let go of Wakefield’s study, and accept it for the fraudulent report that it is?  Why does he still receive support?  This baffles me.


Related Articles:
-  Celebrities Endorsing Stupid Things:  Like the Anti-Vaccination Movement

-  Lancet Retracts Controversial Autism Paper
-  Whooping Cough Makes a Comeback in California



References:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/01/piltdown_medicine_andrew_wakefields_scie.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/it_wasnt_just_shoddy_it_was_fr.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deanscorner/2011/01/fraudulent_vaccine-autism_stud.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/british_medical_journal_calls.php

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...