I have referred before to a prediction that was right in the area of my life that would see activity (career in that case) but 180 degrees out on the impact. I don't think this can be written off as spurious; the astrologer might equally have made a prediction about my health or about tall dark strangers, which didn't feature.
In June we had another example from the same astrologer: she predicted that
"The full moon lunar eclipse due on June 26 will bring a surprising and possibly even jarring situation to a head involving a certain financial matter. This will be a tough moment, because many planets will be fighting with one another in ways we have rarely seen. Everyone, of every sign, will notice tension in the air. "
Instead, what happened is that the company I had left in April advised me that they were paying out my bonus, which is quite a lot of money. So again: right date, right subject, wrong on the direction of the impact.
It is worth knowing that a certain area is due to be impacted; I'll have to track her specific predictions to see if she is always out by 180 degrees or if its just a case of being able to identify area and impact but not direction.
Then again, she predicted that in early June I would get a career boost from the intervention of my friends, especially if I was in some lines of business (one of which I am). That certainly hit true
Wednesday 30 June 2010
Friday 4 June 2010
UK General Election -- wrap-up
I thought I would give it a few weeks and then try to assess the election.
1. Here was an event that would have a well-defined outcome, and therefore provided a good test of predictions.
2. Astrologers' predictions seemed to be all over the show. Many were accurate and many were wrong.
3. One obvious conclusion is that astrology is not repeatable, i.e. not all astrologers will get to the same prediction. This doesn't mean that astrological predictions are worthless (although they might be), but at best it means that astrology is at a partly formalised stage where outputs are highly dependent on the practitioner -- perhaps where medicine was in the Middle Ages? I don't think this is just a matter of experience, otherwise senior members of the associations would get better results than they appear to.
I am still intrigued by the number of cases where a prediction identifies an area in which something will happen, without necessarily getting the exact prediction right.
In the mean time its interesting that we're not seeing much by way of predictions for sporting events such as the football World Cup -- perhaps the people who know what will happen are keeping their predictions to themselves and betting on the outcome? But if they did, it would move the odds, which would be visible for all to see.
1. Here was an event that would have a well-defined outcome, and therefore provided a good test of predictions.
2. Astrologers' predictions seemed to be all over the show. Many were accurate and many were wrong.
3. One obvious conclusion is that astrology is not repeatable, i.e. not all astrologers will get to the same prediction. This doesn't mean that astrological predictions are worthless (although they might be), but at best it means that astrology is at a partly formalised stage where outputs are highly dependent on the practitioner -- perhaps where medicine was in the Middle Ages? I don't think this is just a matter of experience, otherwise senior members of the associations would get better results than they appear to.
I am still intrigued by the number of cases where a prediction identifies an area in which something will happen, without necessarily getting the exact prediction right.
In the mean time its interesting that we're not seeing much by way of predictions for sporting events such as the football World Cup -- perhaps the people who know what will happen are keeping their predictions to themselves and betting on the outcome? But if they did, it would move the odds, which would be visible for all to see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)