Poor Predictions from Astrologers
Update 2010/02/12: I bowed to the pressure of some of the commenters below and changed the title of this post. Previously the title contained the term "bad" which was used in the sense of "not dependable or reliable" at making correct predictions and not in the sense of "evil, unpleasant, deleterious, or noxious". I am ashamed to have caved in on this particularly as changing the title will not actually provide the solution they think it will. I did provide constructive solutions but those seemed to be ignored. Now back to the original post...
In Thursday's Guardian, several astrologers, tarot readers and assorted others were asked for their predictions for the UK General Election (I hope it was supposed to be ironic). Astrologer types can often be believed because few people actually check their predictions but selectively remember the successes. Now that all the results (currently 645 out of 646) are in, I thought it might be good to see how they did. Taking out all the wuffly talk, these are the predictions:
Christine Hillard, Tarot Reader
- Prediction: The process will not go smoothly.
Result: Mostly wrong. Apart from some recounts, it seemed fairly smooth. The postal voting went better than I expected. - Prediction: Charles Kennedy will not be elected.
Result: Correct. He wasn't, although that would have been predicted by most of the country - even Liberal Democrat voters - Prediction: Michael Howard will be higher in the polls than expected.
Result: Wrong. New Labour's majority is about 65; exactly what MORI predicted in the run up to Thursday's vote so I would say that he didn't do better than expected. - Prediction: We're looking at a photo finish.
Result: Wrong. Labour were well out in front all night and finished with a significant (if smaller) majority. - Prediction: Blair will win.
Result: Correct. Wasn't that obvious.
Richard Brown, astrologer He cleverly managed to waffle on for three paragraphs and only makes one prediction.
- Prediction: A period of confusion for Blair stretching into early July.
Result: Not so far. Perhaps for the Conservatives.
Michael Korel, Tarot reader
- Prediction: Lib Dems have no chance whatsoever of success.
Result: Correct. As before, this wasn't surprising for the 'third' party. - Prediction: Some gains for the Conservatives on last time. They won't be enough.
Result: Correct. As all the polls predicted. - Prediction: Labour will have a reliance on previous glories.
Result: Correct. - Prediction: Labour will win with a much smaller majority.
Result: Correct. As MORI et al suggested.
Sharon Rimmer, clairvoyant I will have to ignore her predictions for the coming years and focus on just the last few days.
- Prediction: Labour will just scrape through.
Result: Wrong. A majority of 65 isn't exactly scraping through. - Prediction: The Liberal Democrats will take seats from both the Conservatives and Labour.
Result: Correct. - Prediction: It will be close to a hung parliament. There will be no defining power.
Result: Wrong. A 65 majority. - Prediction: Robert Kilroy-Silk will not win a seat.
Result: Correct. - Prediction: Oona King will defeat the threat of George Galloway.
Result: Wrong. He won!
Camilla Ventham Fraser, spiritual medium Ignoring one prediction for the future.
- Prediction: Blair will be voted out.
Result: Wrong. How wrong could she be. - The Conservatives will return to government with a three-seat majority.
Result: Wrong. The Conservatives got 159 seats less than Labour. - Howard is our next prime minister.
Result: Wrong. - Prediction: Kilroy-Silk will win a seat.
Result: Wrong. He came fourth in the seat he was standing in. - Prediction: The greens will not get a seat.
Result: Correct. - Prediction: Wimbledon will be a Conservative win.
Result: Correct. After a 7.2% swing from Labour to Conservative. - Prediction: The Lib Dems will gain seven seats.
Result: Wrong. They gained 11.
Robin Lown, hand psychologist/palmist
- Prediction: Blair will win by a whisker.
Result: Wrong. - Prediction: Huge loss of marginal seats.
Result: There was a big loss but not big enough to cause a change in government. I'll give him this one. - Prediction: Michael Howard will survive as Conservative leader.
Result: Wrong. He plans to step down.
Paul Watson, western and Chinese astrologer
- Prediction: The Liberals will do fairly well but nothing spectacular
Result: Correct. Let's assume that getting the highest number of seats since the 1920s isn't spectacular. - Prediction: Howard will do better than expected.
Result: Wrong. He did as expected by the opinion polls. - Prediction: Blair will win.
Result: Correct. - Prediction: Closer than the polls predict.
Result: Wrong.
The astrologers provided much astro-babble to make themselves sound important. Talking about Tony Blair, Richard Brown claimed that "the solar return chart has a yod apex Pluto in the second house, which implies determination yielding success in mass movements involving the public". I wonder if that applies to the railways as well. He also managed to bring Quaoar into his discussion, so presumably he thinks Kuiper belt objects are influential. Michael Korel did get all his predictions correct but he wasn't saying anything different to most of the political commentators before the election. Overall though, it would appear that this bunch generally do worse than 50 percent on the success of their predictions once you remove the astro/mystical waffle. I think I'll stick to Andrew Marr.
Comments: Poor Predictions from Astrologers
I will be happy to hear from you about kasamba.com
it's a kind of "ask an expert" directory for psychic reading and tarot cards. As a clairvoyant medium, I was asked to advice there and I will appreciate your help!
Posted by Clairvoyant Medium on Sunday 31st Jul 2005 (11:37 UTC)
What sort of help do you need Clairvoyant Medium?
Posted by Stuart on Sunday 31st Jul 2005 (12:13 UTC)
Hi Stuart, I know you weren't impressed by the mediums, but I wonder if you can help me get in touch with Sharon Rimmer. I have searched but been unable to find any contact details - how did you find her and would you be able to pass her details on?
Rebecca
Posted by Rebecca on Friday 11th Nov 2005 (14:27 UTC)
Hi Stuart,
This is Paul Watson (one of the bad astrologers! - may 2005). No offence was taken by your overview of our various predicitions. It was just some jounalistic hack from the Guardian wanting us to make bland, predictable predicitions - so we did. Alas, when you put in 'paul watson astrologer' in google, your kindly overview as me being a bad astrologer is no.1 which ain't great obviously. So I would politely ask that you assist me in removing said review from Google. I'm assuming you won't mind? regards. Paul.....
Posted by paul watson on Sunday 09th Aug 2009 (13:05 UTC)
Posted by Stuart on Monday 10th Aug 2009 (07:44 UTC)
Hi Stuart, apologies for the pathetic delay in replying. I was just wondering whether you knew how to make google not come up with bad astrologer/ paul watson when you put in paul watson astrologer?!? any ideas? regards. paul - i'm only asking you cos' you posted it!
Posted by paul watson on Thursday 05th Nov 2009 (13:10 UTC)
Of course, I'm not a fan of astrology so I'm happy for my page to be highly ranked. However, it would be be better if your own website was the first search result (and hopefully mine second :-).
If you don't already have your very own website (I can't find one) then get one. Get an address with your name in it e.g. paulwatson.com or something similar (you can get addresses fairly cheaply at places like godaddy.com). You then need to put content on that site about what you do. Then encourage appropriate friends or other websites to link to your website including your name in their links to your site and probably mention that you're an astrologer. That way Google starts to realise that your site is most likely the best resource for stuff about you and you will get ranked higher.
Again, although I really don't like astrology, I do think it is more appropriate for a site specifically about you to come first in the results. Go make it.
Posted by Stuart on Thursday 05th Nov 2009 (21:00 UTC)
Hey Stuart,
I have no desire for you to remove the page, it makes perfectly interesting reading. I don't think anything should be censored. However, you know nothing about me Stuart, is it right to be calling someone you've never met bad? it would be the same as me trawling through your website and thinking, well, this is just dross or whatever, and then posting a piece saying you haven't a clue what you're talking about - I'd never do that, I don't know you, how can I? And anyway, you seem perfectly informed to me. I'm about to lauch a website, hence my request to you. Look, whatever you can do Stuart, I'd be grateful. regards. paul...
Posted by paul watson on Sunday 15th Nov 2009 (03:05 UTC)
The title of this post is derived from the title of the Bad Astronomer's blog (check it out). The "bad" does not mean that you are a nasty person (I'll assume you are perfectly nice and friendly) but refers to the job title. I'm am happy to call someone a bad architect if they poorly design a building. Someone is a bad accountant if they can't make proper accounts. I don't have to have met those people and it doesn't mean they are bad *people*.
Would you be happy for me to add the following sentence at the start of this post? "NOTE (November 2009): The title of this post is not meant to imply that there are "good" astrologers. The following astrologers are mentioned by name solely because they were quoted in the Guardian newspaper talking about a specific event."
P.S. I assume you didn't mean to put your email address in the URL field. By displaying it on this website you'll get lots of spam. I've removed your email address from the URL field to stop you getting spam. If you did want your email address shown, let me know and I'll put it back.
Posted by Stuart on Sunday 15th Nov 2009 (13:01 UTC)
I saw you on this morning and found the things you said very interesting. I am single born on the 8/5/64 iam finding it difficult to find a love match and a job will this change for me in 2010?
Posted by Dawn Travis on Monday 08th Feb 2010 (22:19 UTC)
I found your dual astrology approach fascinating, and would love to know more. Have you written a book about it yet?
My birthday is 29th December 1954.(I think I am a Chinese Horse)Having just brought my 2 sons up single handed I am now free to find someone to love. I think it would be great to have a dating website guided by this form of Astrology. Do you know if there is one, or if you could tell me what would be great matches for me, as, although I have met many men, I dont think I have met a truly great match yet, and it does seem to get harder rather than easier with experience. Hoping to hear from you. Sue
Posted by Sue Caddy on Monday 08th Feb 2010 (22:57 UTC)
I saw Paul on This Morning as well and found it very interesting, especially as I am a Pisces born in 72! lol ;0)
I hope the authour of this website helps you out a little, I think he is being unecessarily obstructive and I look forward to seeing your own website with all of your love astro/chinese astro info on.
We don't have to take astrology as the gospel truth (I don't even think the gospels are the truth!) but it does give us some guidence, but we always have free will, so those who don't like it, need not complain about it.
There are a lot of rubbish astrologers out there, but I don't really see the point of labelling them. Despite that, thank God for free speech, even if we don't like what is written!
Good luck Paul!
Posted by Dee on Tuesday 09th Feb 2010 (16:18 UTC)
If you've read the comments you'll see that I suggested ways for him to positively improve his ranking rather than negatively lower mine.
Posted by Stuart on Wednesday 10th Feb 2010 (07:54 UTC)
Hi Stuart (and Paul)
I'm a solar observing satellite, and due to be launched today. I was wondering if it would make any difference what sign the Sun was in during my launch? Obviously as I'm going to spend time staring at the Sun it must be important, and I'm sure my team would be happy to delay launch if it would help improve the astrological forecast.
Thanks
SDO.
Posted by SDO on Wednesday 10th Feb 2010 (08:23 UTC)
Hi Stuart,
I am a pretty poor example of a medium myself, but people have told me I'm more of a small.
George
Posted by George Darcy on Wednesday 10th Feb 2010 (08:49 UTC)
Hi,
I too really enjoyed Paul's appearance on This Morning. I felt his hat made him seem particularly authoritative in his scientific pursuits. However, I have to point out that I only have room for one astrologer in my life, a man who has been a titan in the science of astrology for so many years - Astrological Bob. You too can read his startling predictions here http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/category/horoscopes/
All the best (though, obviously, only the stars can determine whether you do actually recieve the best),
Dave
Posted by Dave Jones on Wednesday 10th Feb 2010 (09:06 UTC)
It is interesting to see Paul feature briefly after so many false starts and such a long time. Maybe it is down to covering his head, Iâ™m sure fans of the band Foreigner from the Seventies were delighted to see that hat again. Paul offers a mix of Chinese and Western techniques that mimic the published work of Suzanne White and several others on the Web, but his application is deeply flawed and offers damaging and misleading suggestions to a vulnerable public at best. Luckily the gap between what he says and the chaos of his own life is so large, few will be fooled by such hollow pronouncements for very long.
Posted by Jack Frost on Wednesday 10th Feb 2010 (12:16 UTC)
Hello Stuart
You think what I said was unfair and Paul thinks what you wrote about him is unfair, oh the casualties of having free speech ;0)
You could have written astrologers that got it wrong, instead of bad astrologers. That would have been more accurate. Trust me, I'm no fan of astrologers who think they are prophets and can't even predict Sunday follows Saturday! ;0)
When it comes up under a search, it doesn't look good for the person who you have called bad, which is just your judgement of them. Of course you are entitled to say what you want, especially on your own blog, but why not try and cause no pain whilst voicing your opinion...?
You're posts sounded a tad facetious to me, like you were enjoying the fact that he didn't like what you wrote and probably isn't as internet savvy as you, so won't know how to make your bad statement about him good. Yes, I know you gave him a list of things he could do. :0)
That's just my opinion, I could be wrong. You may genuinely want to help him out. But non of us know each other, we can only go by what we read.
Have you found any astrologers that have got predictions right, or are you not looking for them?
Either way, I think you are getting some good internet traffic out of it, so it's all good in the end. ;0)
Posted by Dee on Wednesday 10th Feb 2010 (16:16 UTC)
Except for not removing this post, I thought I was more helpful than most people would be in this situation. I have no control over Google search results so the only way to achieve what Paul wanted was for me to delete (or change) this post or for him to pro-actively improve his ranking. Paul originally said that he wasn't asking me to censor my post and I took him at his word. A further suggestion: he could create a holding page for his new (not-yet-launched) website and get appropriate astrology websites (or This Morning) to link to that site mentioning his name. That would hugely boost his ranking in Google. That is by far the best (and most positive) solution.
Dee, you seem to be suggesting that "Astrologers that got it wrong" as the title would help Paul. I wouldn't have thought so. Hopefully Paul can tell us if he would prefer that title. Again, the title of this post was a pun on the Bad Astronomer's blog title (go read it, it contains lots of good stuff). The name Bad Astronomer has been around for a while and Phil chose it himself.
I have no idea if I am "more internet savvy" than Paul or not given that I don't know him. I thought it best to make any suggestions I could so that if he hadn't tried any of them he could. If he had already tried them, he could have told me and I could have thought of some more.
It is not just a case of getting some predictions correct. Anyone can do that if they make enough predictions. There is no scientific evidence to show that astrology is significantly better than predictions based on chance. This does *not* mean that someone couldn't do a rigorous study to show that. It is up to those that claim astrology to be able to make predictions to take part in those trials (in a statistically significant, double blind trial). If such a trial was done and a significant result was found astrology could be a science.
I don't care about getting "good internet traffic out of it" despite what you might imply. Hardly anyone reads this blog and I do not really do much to increase traffic.
Of course you feel fine being negative about me because you don't like that I was negative about Paul's predictive abilities based on the evidence I had available. I have not said anything bad against Paul as a person. I have made several attempts to be helpful despite the fact that I'm giving my time to someone who stands to gain, financially, from my help. My reward seems to be criticism from you and that makes me unhappy.
Posted by Stuart on Wednesday 10th Feb 2010 (18:32 UTC)
The "criticism" as you put it from me isn't what is making you unhappy. It's your need to be right that is really making you unhappy.
You're over long post reflects this and it's only
taking us around in circles.
I wasn't being negative about you. I was responding to your negative title and lack of what I thought was a not so genuine attempt to help Paul out.
This is your blog and you can do whatever you want on it. I have no malice towards I was simply responding to what I read.
We all have choices and behave in the way we want to. I would like to think whenever we get a chance to make a better choice then we do.
Anyway, Paul isn't sweating you about it any more and I don't have anything else to say on the matter, so no worries.
Posted by Dee on Friday 12th Feb 2010 (18:56 UTC)
Posted by Stuart on Friday 12th Feb 2010 (19:55 UTC)