James Randi, Hugh Laurie and an Attempt to Disprove Astrology
March 2, 2008
James Randi works very hard to disprove astrology. This blind reading by Astrologer Jonathan Cainor of actor Hugh Laurie was said by Hugh Laurie to be totally off the mark. What do you think?
You will notice that during the reading Laurie’s head bobs up and down in agreement to some of the descriptions, but then said in the film that none of it was true. It seems curious to me that all the descriptions, extrovert, unusual, larger than life, quick witted, full of confidence, loves the limelight are denied by actor Hugh Laurie.
Here are some of Laurie’s own words “disproving” some of these descriptions:
On not being “professioral�?
The following year, Laurie entered Cambridge University, with the intention of studying archeology and anthropology.
On not having a “zany sense of humor�? or “not liking the limelight”:
What he likes about comedy: “I very much fell into performing by accident, but I was excited by the physical pleasure of making a small group of people laugh and that is still largely why I do it.”
Oh yes, in the UK he is known primarily as being a comedy actor.
On not being “unusual�? As Laurie himself puts it, he’s always been “the chap who turns up for three or four days on a film, puts on a stupid wig, and shouts.”
But as his current character House says, everybody lies.
You might want to check out this follow-post: Laurie and Fry: Twin Sons of Different Mothers
Below is Hugh Laurie’s chart.
astrology, horoscopes, zodiac, Hugh Laurie
March 4th, 2008 at 4:42 am
Hugh had already been to Cambridge university when this was filmed - you notice he comments in the video that he got the lowest grade in his degree. Probably largely because he was more interested in other things than studying, but though he’s undoubtedly very intelligent, “professorial” is different - having a particular kind of learned air about you and imparting knowledge to others like a professor would.
His head only bobs up and down at the start oof the astrologer’s words, in a kind of “yup, I’m listening to you” way; it’s Stephen who nods at the actual description and who raises his hand when asked if he thinks it’s his description. Hugh doesn’t.
I think some of the characteristics do fit Hugh (zany humour, unusual) but almost ANY description is likely to hit home in a few places. What’s far more striking here is that the description so obviously fits Stephen better than Hugh.
March 4th, 2008 at 6:00 am
[...] - he doesn’t do it for attention, but rather because he thoroughly enjoy it. Head over here to see the video and let me know if you think that the astrologer is right on the money about Hugh, [...]
March 4th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Annabel, thanks for leaving a comment. I love to hear from the people who read this blog.
What I find curious is that Randi, who does know some astrology, chose a well known comedy team for this challenge who share nearly identical planetary placements in their charts. These two men are nearly “astro twins”. For instance, both men have a Leo Moon conjunct Uranus. So yes, a general description of one would apply to the other.
As for why Laurie said none of it applied to him, that is a post for another day.
February 11th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
James Randi’s first formal “debunking” was of astrology… and his organization fudged the numbers so badly that the statistician they hired for the job quit… loudly and publicly.
I’m not surprised the treacherous old self-promoted rigged THIS test based on his own knowledge of astrology.
Watch what happens when a good astrologer meets an HONEST skeptic:
http://matthewastrology.blogspot.com/2009/02/astrologers-karma-runs-over-skeptics.html
April 6th, 2009 at 7:34 am
Poor Jonathan! They set him up!
And they were so mean! But he took it so well. Go, Jonathan!