0
What else can I help you with?
Is there a scientific basis for horoscopes?
Astrology, including horoscopes, is considered a pseudoscience by the scientific community. Pseudoscience is a belief or process that claims to be based on scientific principles but lacks empirical evidence, consistent methodology, and refutation, making it inherently unscientific. Here are some reasons why astrology, including horoscopes, is not considered scientifically valid: Lack of empirical evidence: Scientific theories and concepts are supported by extensive empirical evidence obtained through controlled experiments, observations, and measurements. Astrology does not meet this standard; Its principles are not supported by scientific evidence. Unforgeability: Scientific theories are formulated so that they can be tested and potentially disproved by experiments or observations. Astrology often relies on vague or ambiguous interpretations, making it difficult to objectively verify or falsify its claims.
Why are horoscopes and astrology scientific?
They are not scientific. They are based on an ancient belief that the planets were gods and could influence our lives in ways that science has now proven they cannot. ******* The only scientific part of astrology in my opinion is the actual casting of the horoscope since it is based on the positions of the planets...that cannot be disputed. The rest of astrology is art and intuition. This is why so many scientists poo poo astrology, because the interpretation or divination of the chart is something that cannot be tested as far as everyone responds to a certain transit or progression the same. Science wants a theory to be proven under controlled circumstances. Humans are not able to be controlled. Some will react to an aspect of their chart in one way, while another will handle it totally different. So, scientific? Sure, to a very limited extent. The rest is up to a good astrologer to decipher it all! --- Juli*
What is on way that early scientific practiced differed from modern scientific practice?
Early hypotheses were not tested by expirementation
What type of warfare was practiced for the first time in World War 1?
they tested space travel and eating micdonalds
What are some pseudoscience?
By Definition (from Wikipedia)Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.So pseudoscience is NOT real science.
How have scientists come to know that there is no scientific evidence of astrology?
Scientists answer questions by using the scientific method (making observations, doing experiments, formulating, testing, and modifying hypotheses). In all experiments where this process has been used to test its validity, astrology has failed.
What does theory must have?
A theory must have explanatory power, predictive ability, and be falsifiable. It should also be based on empirical evidence and be able to be tested and refined through scientific methods.
Emergency operation plans should not be tested in advance so that responders will react with additional energy and not be complacent?
Emergency Operation plans should be tested in advanced. The emergency responders should know what they are doing that way they are not freezing up and wondering what to do, they have trained and practiced.
Does the New Testament approve of astrology?
Astrology is a pseudo-science based on the view that the stars and planets exert a strong influence on human affairs. It claims that the relative positions of the heavenly bodies at an individual's birth determine his or her basic makeup, and that changing astral positions can be used to predict the future. However, because the heavens were never intended for these purposes, astrology is a dangerous and wrongful practice. Stars were created for calendar keeping and for declaring God's glory. To use them otherwise is idolatry, as warned against throughout Scripture (Deut. 4:19; 2 Kings 23:5; Isa. 47:13). Astrology should not even be consulted for amusement. It is connected with the forces of evil and can lead to other occult practices and bondage to sin. Astrology has three major flaws, each of which cancels any claim to scientific validity. # First, astrology fails to succeed when tested against reality. For example, the distribution of the heavens at the moment of birth is supposed to determine one's astrological sign and thus one's personality and future. On that basis, twins should have nearly identical lives. However, twins often vary greatly in talent, personality, and the paths of life they choose. Remember Jacob and Esau (Gen. 25:19-34). # Second, one's so-called astrological sign is no longer valid. Because of the precession of the earth's axis, a person is actually born under a different star sign than is assigned by the outdated horoscopes in use today. Astrology is based on the former positions of stars (as they were 3,000 years ago in Babylonian times). Each year, the error in dating the zodiac signs grows greater. # Third, it is impossible for the stars to have an effect on a person, much less on world events. The gravity of stars and planets is the only force that acts through space distances, and its effect if negligible on Earth.
Which is correct tested dermatologically or dermatologically tested?
Dermatologically tested, I think.
Who should have access to personal genetic information and how will it be used?
As genetic testing becomes more available both in terms of quality and affordability of test, more people will choose to be tested for genetic conditions and predictive risk assessment.
Do scientists consider hypothesis as being a fact?
No. In science, facts are those phenomena which can be consistently observed and measured. A hypothesis is a testable, educated guess about what sort of rules might govern the behavior of the observed phenomena. Once a hypothesis is formed, it is then tested to determine how well it fits teh phenomena, and whether it can therefore provide a useful means of predicting the behavior of similar phenomena. If the hypothesis fails to provide an explanation with verifiable predictive power, it is rejected, and a new hypothesis is formed, then that new hypothesis is tested. If the hypothesis is verified -- testing shows that it does provide a useful explanation of teh phenomena with some predictive power -- then it may eventually become a _theory_, providing it stands up to repeated testing, and is not falsified (and therefore rejected). A theory represents a well-tested explanation for how a particular phenomenon or particular phenomena behave. All of the "testing" refered to above will be carried out according to the _scientific method_. So a "theory" is not a fact, but an -explanation- for observed facts. And a "Hypothesis" is a working model for a theory, a model awaiting testing, or in the process of being tested.
