Vedic Astrology: Michael Shermer vs Jeffrey Armstrong

[Son of Mr. Gordo]

In a scenario set up to debunk astrology, Jeffrey Armstrong completely outshines Michael Shermer in a way that any scientist should say is "statistically interesting."

The SCENARIO: Jeffrey reads NINE charts in about TWENTY minutes. Most charts are usually given an hour of study each. EXPERIMENT I: face-to-face reading with a skeptic. The subject, afterwards, said Jeffrey's reading "officially blew me away." EXPERIMENT II: Nine "blind" readings. Results: 105 of 137—or 77%—of Jeffrey's statements deemed accurate, ALL scores 63% or over, high of 89%. EXPERIMENT III: The kicker. Two of the nine, unbeknownst to Jeffrey or the subjects, have their charts switched. Accuracy rating drops to 38 and 21% respectively. Switched back to true charts, accuracy goes to 94 and 92%.

YouTube - Vedic Astrology: Michael Shermer vs Jeffrey Armstrong

[m1thr0s]

fascinating. Vedic astrology has a great deal of continuity going for it that is often lacking in so-called *western* astrology...which means, what? Western astrology is a broken mish-mash of many bits and pieces, rarely incorporating everything that ought to qualify as *western*...so this is hardly very surprising.

Even so, in the right hands, I have seen it rise to very respectable levels not ordinarily witnessed in the tabloids or popular media, so I think it is possible to repair this damage on a personal level at least...

very interesting video...thanks for bringing this to the table!

m1thr0s

[Naomi]

I was thinking this probably has nothing to do with the planets, but it is accurate anyways. My guess is it is a whole lot weirder than people (even astrologers) actually think....

I got into astrology when I found a book by Linda Goodman from the 70's under a bed in some relative's house along with a book on body language from the 70's too. I think I was 9, I read everything I could get my hands on. Her writing style intrigued me and it was a good read. I think her accuracy is spot on. I recommend her book usually, but she's so sexist it's like the book was tailored for the 1950's, giving it a really quaint undertone which is amusing and scary at the same time. Vedic astrology is something I find more complex and scientific but I have no interest in astrology anymore since I have discovered how to transcend the boundaries of charts. It's not all that difficult it just takes discipline and a desire to change.

It was a good video, a little too short but interesting. I don't understand how they calculated the percentages, that seemed fishy. I don't like TV style experiments generally, I feel like I'm being patronized, but the idea is cool.

[Son of Mr. Gordo]

Glad you all enjoyed it. Though I only have a fairly remedial understanding of astrology in general, when Michael Shermer made the comment that Vedic astrology was considered more accurate, it was because in India, they use what is primarily called sidereal astrology. The signs of the zodiac align to the sky constellations of the same name. The signs therefore go between dates which are different from the tropical zodiac used in the West. For example, Aries runs from March 21 to April 20 in the tropical zodiac, but extends from April 14 to May 14 in the sidereal (although the precise dates may vary depending on the sidereal system used).

Of course, I haven't tested this theory, but I've heard of many western astrologers moving over to Vedic astrology in the last 10 years or so.