Astrology

[Vallerina 2]

Yes, but most of us Ophiuchuses do.

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[philh 0]

"For example, if a large number of investors in a given stock expect the stock to drop for astrological reasons, then the stock WILL drop because many of the investors believing in astrology will sell. "

No there would have to be a significant numbers of astrologically minded investors for that to happen, a couple of cranks putting a sell order in isnt going to do much. Most investing is not done by individuals its done by institutional investors and they are not known to be looking at astrology. So Im sure a skeptical investor will be just fine.

"As to whether astrology has an original basis in verifiable scientific fact independent of the fact that many people believe in it, I'm not sure. I do know that I've spent a lot of time around people who believe in it."

You may not be sure, anyone who has studied physics will be very sure that it doesn not have any scientific basis. There is no known mechanism for the planets to influence our life. Anyone that wants to take it seriously might consider suggesting one. Of course if there is a genuine effect then maybe we could consider it wihtout a mechanism. But the evidence is clear there is no realtionship. Manchester Univeristy did the biggets study ever. They took Uk census data and examined whether marriages were consistent with chance or with astrology. they were studying tens of millions of people and so even a small effect would be picked up, it wasnt. The results were perefctly in sync with chance. You can read about it here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,2149800,00.html

[pirana 0]

Quote

I don't think you can discount all of it. The earth is unquestionably affected by universal elements, some of which can be mathematically predicted, right?
Do you believe the Farmers Almanac is generally correct?

You are gravitationally affected more by the person standing next to you than you are by any star other than the Sun (probably more than by all the other stars put together other than the Sun).

What other "universal elements" did you have in mind?

You CAN discount all of it, and there is absolutely no proof, even a proof in concept, that it is anything but wishful thinking.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't think you can discount all of it. The earth is unquestionably affected by universal elements, some of which can be mathematically predicted, right?
Do you believe the Farmers Almanac is generally correct?

I just fail to see how the position of the other planets in our solar system can be used to predict anything of significance in our lives.
Anyone care to explain how this could be done?

As far as the farmers almanac, I haven't read it. Does it base predictions on astrology?

Predictions of seasons based on the position of the Sun are not astrology. Astrology is believing your personal future is tied to postions of Sun, Moon, planets, and stars. Simply studying the movements of those things, and what non-supernatural effects they have on each other is not astrology.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Saw it mentioned in another post...
Does anyone honestly take astrology seriously?

Yes, the position of the planets CAN have a very significant effect on human affairs. And there is a very simple explanation for that. A large number of people believe in astrology and therefore behave differently in response to certain configurations of the planets than others. For example, if a large number of investors in a given stock expect the stock to drop for astrological reasons, then the stock WILL drop because many of the investors believing in astrology will sell.

Skeptics who laugh at astrology may have science on their side but if they own the same stock they, too, will be rewarded for their ignorance of astrology by having their stock, too, drop in value--but unlike the astrologers it will come as a surprise to the skeptics and they won't know what hit them.

As to whether astrology has an original basis in verifiable scientific fact independent of the fact that many people believe in it, I'm not sure. I do know that I've spent a lot of time around people who believe in it. Even if it has value, these people tend to be obsessed with it, and astrology and similar pursuits can become an all-consuming passion. I don't want astrology to be my passion. I've come to realize more and more recently that skydiving is my true passion and, if I ever want to make a significant number of jumps, I'm going to have to spend time around skydivers, not astrologers.

BTW astrologers tend to be very obsessed with Mercury retrograde periods. These are the periods three times a year when the apparent motion of Mercury (of course Mercury's real orbit never changes) is in the opposite to normal direction. Astrologers generally are rather paranoid about these periods and believe that things tend to go wrong during these periods. If they can, people believing in astrology will batten down the hatches and go into hibernation during Mercury retrograde periods to avoid taking any risk. Again, it is good to know about these things, even if you don't believe in astrology, because a significant number of people do, and I believe it does have an effect on human behavior for that reason.

Mercury is retrograde right now.

And Mercury was retrograde when I had my one and only malfunction--but I'm sure that was purely coincidental.

And we have therefore established the mechanism of influence to be paranoid delusional belief.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

The birth sequence is completely astrological. The star in the east is Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, which, on December 24th, aligns with the 3 brightest stars in Orion's Belt.

If Sirius lines up with Orion's belt stars on 12/24; then it also does so every other day of the year.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

It is worth noting that James Randi has an outstanding challenge/offer of 1 million dollars (maybe it's multiple millions) for anyone who can prove supernatural powers in a controlled experiment. Not sure if it includes astrologers, but they are just another flavor of the same BS.

To date, not one person has even come close. The professionals (those bilking the masses for their cash) refuse to bite since they know it will expose them.

Tarot, astrology, crystal balls, tea leaves, palmistry, FOX News, etc; opiates of the ignorant.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[philh 0]

Randi did a nice experiment. He worte horoscopes for students and asked them to rate it for accuracy. Most found them to be remarkably accuarte , then they were asked to swap with each other. Each horroscope was exactly the same!

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Saw it mentioned in another post...
Does anyone honestly take astrology seriously?

To answer your question... Yes, some people do... but not me.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

You may not be sure, anyone who has studied physics will be very sure that it doesn not have any scientific basis. There is no known mechanism for the planets to influence our life. Anyone that wants to take it seriously might consider suggesting one. Of course if there is a genuine effect then maybe we could consider it wihtout a mechanism. But the evidence is clear there is no realtionship. Manchester Univeristy did the biggets study ever. They took Uk census data and examined whether marriages were consistent with chance or with astrology. they were studying tens of millions of people and so even a small effect would be picked up, it wasnt. The results were perefctly in sync with chance. You can read about it here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,2149800,00.html

I'm rather skeptical of this study because I would expect a correlation even if astrology is completely bogus. Here's why. People start school (kindergarten, etc) in a cohort of a whole year at a time. That means that someone born in December may, in kindergarten, have to compete physically, socially, intellectually, etc., with someone born in January who is nearly a whole year older. That difference is huge for a 4- or 5-year old. I have to believe that there would be small, but measurable, differences in personality that carry over to adulthood based on the time of year one is born, simply because those born later in the year are thrust into certain experiences at a younger age than those born earlier in the year.

Now would such an effect have anything at all to do with astrology? Of course not. But it makes me skeptical of a study that claims there is no connection between personality and month of birth--because there are good non-astrological reasons for believing such a correlation would exist.

Additionally, the astrologers noted in the article are correct in asserting that serious astrologers do not use Sun Sign astrology. Sun Sign astrology is generally understood by serious astrologers to be for entertainment purposes only. Real astrology does, indeed, look at a person's complete natal chart. Of course, this by no means provides proof that "real" astrology is any more valid than Sun Sign astrology.

My conclusion is that the scientific and astrological camps are BOTH really afraid of being wrong, so both sides have a vested interest in ensuring that a study which could truly prove/disprove astrology never takes place. Thus, the same scenario gets replayed countless times: scientists conduct a study disproving Sun Sign astrology, and astrologers discount the study because Sun Sign astrology isn't "real" astrology. This stalemate allows both sides to continue to make a living at what they do.

So we are left with my original statement: I truly do not know which side is right, and I do not expect to ever know.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

My conclusion is that the scientific and astrological camps are BOTH really afraid of being wrong, so both sides have a vested interest in ensuring that a study which could truly prove/disprove astrology never takes place. Thus, the same scenario gets replayed countless times: scientists conduct a study disproving Sun Sign astrology, and astrologers discount the study because Sun Sign astrology isn't "real" astrology. This stalemate allows both sides to continue to make a living at what they do.

I think you massively overestimate how much the 'scientific camp' gives a fuck about astrology. Which scientists, exactly, make a regular living out of disproving astrology?

(I mean come on, scientists have a "vested interest in ensuring a study never takes place"? Are you serious?)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,120]

>My conclusion is that the scientific and astrological camps are BOTH
> really afraid of being wrong, so both sides have a vested interest in
> ensuring that a study which could truly prove/disprove astrology never
> takes place.

That seems akin to claiming that both the round-earth scientists and the flat-earth camp are both really afraid of being wrong, so both sides have a vested interest in ensuring that a study which could truly prove/disprove the flat earth theory never takes place.

In reality, I think that scientists don't waste their time with people who think the earth is flat (or that astrology determines our destinies.) Their time is better spent answering more important questions about the nature of the universe.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

I think you massively overestimate how much the 'scientific camp' gives a fuck about astrology. Which scientists, exactly, make a regular living out of disproving astrology?

I hate to kick a guy when he's dead, but a good example would be Carl Sagan. That guy was definitely a professional skeptic, and definitely had a vested interest--or at least publicly proclaimed himself to have a vested interest--in disproving everything he didn't understand.

There is a certain scientific machismo of pretending not to give a fuck about astrology--that is because it scares them shitless.

Again, I don't know who is right--science scares the astrologers shitless just as much.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

I hate to kick a guy when he's dead, but a good example would be Carl Sagan. That guy was definitely a professional skeptic, and definitely had a vested interest--or at least publicly proclaimed himself to have a vested interest--in disproving everything he didn't understand.

You do Mr Sagan a great disservice

Quote

There is a certain scientific machismo of pretending not to give a fuck about astrology--that is because it scares them shitless.

Hah! Who, exactly, does astrology scare shitless? You're just making this shit up as you go along!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

That seems akin to claiming that both the round-earth scientists and the flat-earth camp are both really afraid of being wrong, so both sides have a vested interest in ensuring that a study which could truly prove/disprove the flat earth theory never takes place.

You perfectly describe the situation in Europe prior to 1492. Such a "study" was eventually funded by Isabella only because there was a potential to make money, not for the purpose of learning the truth for its own sake. Indeed, the truth and Columbus--a habitual liar--were not well acquainted.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[quade 4]

Quote

Their time is better spent answering more important questions about the nature of the universe.

(Not directed at billvon but expaning upon it.)

Much of which was introduced to the civilized world as a result of . . .

Astrology essentially stops being "science" for most of the western world in or about the middle ages. Before that, it WAS science.

So, let's give props to the folks that lead us down this path, but we should all recognize that science is the continued refinement and understanding of the world around us. It really doesn't have any agenda other than finding out the way things really work. When it comes to the basic influences of the sky to our destinies, that was done centuries ago. It's only the charlatans that continue to prey upon the less well educated and continue the practice of ancient beliefs and hocus-pocus.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

Hah! Who, exactly, does astrology scare shitless? You're just making this shit up as you go along!

Astrology scares shitless those scientists who get emotional about it--who cannot talk about astrology without raising their voice and getting upset. As to why it scares them shitless, I'm not really sure. Perhaps it is because the whole life of a scientist is based around the idea that the rational mind is ideal. If a scientist encounters a significant number of people who cannot think rationally, and who cannot be persuaded to think rationally, the scientist becomes frightened. The reason is that if a majority of people ever started to think in non-rational ways, the whole world of the scientist would fall apart. The scientist relies on a rational worldview and must marginalize those who do not subscribe to that worldview. As long as the scientist can believe that the numbers of those with opposing views is low, the scientist can sleep at night.

You see, the real issue that bothers a scientist is not the influence of Jupiter or Venus on people's lives. Rather, it is that the scientist cannot explain why--despite all the scientific, educational, and technological advances of the last 100 years--they cannot influence a significant part of the population. That scares a scientist because a scientist believes with every fiber of their being that most people will listen to reason with enough education. When they don't, it threatens a scientist's very view of the world.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[stevebabin 0]

Quote

The reason is that if a majority of people ever started to think in non-rational ways, the whole world of the scientist would fall apart.

More than the scientist's world would fall apart. Imagine driving among an irrational population. We count on people acting rationally, and when they don't, very bad things can happen. It's no wonder that scientists are concerned when they find irrational people.
People that act irrationally are usually thought to be mentally ill, aren't they?

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

More than the scientist's world would fall apart. Imagine driving among an irrational population. We count on people acting rationally, and when they don't, very bad things can happen. It's no wonder that scientists are concerned when they find irrational people.
People that act irrationally are usually thought to be mentally ill, aren't they?

This is where it starts to get rather tricky rather fast. As soon as you start talking about people being mentally ill--and drawing comparisons to situations where we have clear laws--it is a very slippery slope to having people being committed for their beliefs. I do think that, in general, people's civil liberties trump a scientist's personal distaste with irrational behavior. Generally I think we should only be applying the "mentally ill" label--with its potential for both denial of civil liberties and social stigma--to behaviors clearly shown to be harmful to others.

Driving clearly creates risk to others. There is a clear reason for restricting this privilege for those acting in a way that creates danger to others. There is no such clear evidence that astrology is harmful to others. Before scientists start throwing around the "mentally ill" label with respect to astrology, they would need to prove two things beyond a reasonable doubt: that astrology is bogus, and that astrology is harmful to others. To the best of my knowledge scientists have not yet come close to doing so.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I'm rather skeptical of this study because I would expect a correlation even if astrology is completely bogus. Here's why. People start school (kindergarten, etc) in a cohort of a whole year at a time. That means that someone born in December may, in kindergarten, have to compete physically, socially, intellectually, etc., with someone born in January who is nearly a whole year older. That difference is huge for a 4- or 5-year old. I have to believe that there would be small, but measurable, differences in personality that carry over to adulthood based on the time of year one is born, simply because those born later in the year are thrust into certain experiences at a younger age than those born earlier in the year.

Interesting.

I've read that there are some psychological disorders for which the positively diagnosed patients do not have a uniform distribution of birth dates (month and day only), or even close to it. In other words some disorders are more likely to be diagnosed in people born during a certain time of the year.

Because of this, I've suspected astrology to be an incorrect explanation for observed patterns in personality. Instead of being abandoned for a better explanation that explained the differences better, society stopped seeking any kind of explanation.

Your post certainly offers a different plausible explanation for the lack of independence between psy. disorders and birthdays.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Astrology scares shitless those scientists who get emotional about it--who cannot talk about astrology without raising their voice and getting upset.

Who are they?

Quote

Perhaps it is because the whole life of a scientist is based around the idea that the rational mind is ideal. If a scientist encounters a significant number of people who cannot think rationally, and who cannot be persuaded to think rationally, the scientist becomes frightened. The reason is that if a majority of people ever started to think in non-rational ways, the whole world of the scientist would fall apart. The scientist relies on a rational worldview and must marginalize those who do not subscribe to that worldview. As long as the scientist can believe that the numbers of those with opposing views is low, the scientist can sleep at night.

Anyone with half a brain can look around and see how many people cling to completely irrational beliefs, and it's not a minority. This entire section of your post makes zero sense.

Quote

That scares a scientist because a scientist believes with every fiber of their being that most people will listen to reason with enough education. When they don't, it threatens a scientist's very view of the world.

Problem here is, you are again talking bollocks, aren't you?

(And I'm sure you realise that this entire post is also completely irrelevant in justifying your original claim that scientists are really afraid of being wrong about astrology. All those scientists who apparently make a living from semi debunking astrology. Whoever the hell they are...)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

(And I'm sure you realise that this entire post is also completely irrelevant in justifying your original claim that scientists are really afraid of being wrong about astrology. All those scientists who apparently make a living from semi debunking astrology. Whoever the hell they are...)

That is because I do not think you understood my original point. There are, AFAIK, no scientists who make a living from debunking astrology. None. Nadda. But there are many scientists who will laugh scornfully whenever astrology is mentioned in casual conversation. If they are so sure that astrology is wrong, why are they unwilling to put their careers on the line by actually conducting an experiment that would prove or disprove it once and for all? My criticism of scientists is not that they make a living debunking astrology. It is the exact opposite--they don't make a living debunking astrology despite their purported cocky self-assurance on the matter.

Now as for the claim made by others in this thread that once, centuries ago, science and astrology may have been closely related but that astrology has (apparently) been relegated to the status of bogus superstition over the centuries. If that were true, then there should be a famous scientist who published the seminal work disproving astrology. For example, Copernicus disproved the notion that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Eratosthenes showed the Earth to be round, not flat, by his measurements, subsequently verified (from the European perspective, at least) by the voyages of Columbus and Magellan. Darwin disproved the account of creation given in the bible and other old religious texts.

If science disproved astrology centuries ago, who exactly is the famous scientist who disproved it?

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[quade 4]

Quote

If science disproved astrology centuries ago, who exactly is the famous scientist who disproved it?

I think you don't understand a couple of things but basically, it's impossible to prove something doesn't happen or never did happen..

For instance, there isn't a scientist that can prove that UFOs have never visited the Earth. It's simply not possible.

What science works on is proof that things DO happen. If an experiment can be made and be done repeatably and predictably, then that is working toward a proof that something happens.

Perhaps you can show us that Astrology DOES work. I'd be happy to provide any information you'd like and you can make any SPECIFIC prediction you'd like. None of this "vague applies to anyone" crap we get in fortune cookies, but something based on my day and hour of birth that ONLY applies to ME and ME alone.

Let's run that experiment say . . . 10 times . . . if you're right 6 out of 10 times . . . you win.







p.s. I have NEVER lost a bet I've made on this web site.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[philh 0]

Siva Ganesha , the correlation you expect may sound reasonable. But it doesn’t matter how reasonable it sounds, what matter is whether the data actually backs up what you say. That’s the difference between real science and pseudo science, real science has to back up its claims with data, and pseudo science like astrology, alt medicine, etc doesn’t.
In this case, the study showed the marriage data was perfectly consistent with a random model. The data came straight out the Uk census data! So your implication that the statistician’s motive played a part is completely without foundation. If you want to get anyone to take your ideas of birth date effects seriously, do the study yourself, get it published in a reputable statistics journal and people will take you seriously, without that people will quite rightly dismiss such ideas.

As far as which type of astrology is valid, I’m afraid there’s no evidence that any form is valid. Please provide peer reviewed data that says otherwise or accept the conclusion.

“I hate to kick a guy when he's dead, but a good example would be Carl Sagan. That guy was definitely a professional sceptic, and definitely had a vested interest--or at least publicly proclaimed himself to have a vested interest--in disproving everything he didn't understand. “
I can only guess you have never read anything by Carl Sagan. He was a great public advocate of the scientific method. This does not in any way imply trying to disprove something just because it is not understood. Scientists do the opposite, they study what is not understood so that it can become understood. There is no point in doing scientific research on problems that are already solved; it’s done on problems which have not been solved. Nobody got a PhD, a research grant or a Nobel Prize for discovering something already known. To quote Carl Sagan
“Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known”
That is really the spirit of science. Scientists don’t try and disprove something just because they don’t understand, in fact they try and disprove everything. That which cannot be disproved is more likely to be accepted. That which can be disproved is discarded. That’s why scientific scrutiny is more likely to be leading us to the truth than any other form of inquiry. To quote Carl Sagan again
“Sceptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. “

[JackC 0]

Quote

There are, AFAIK, no scientists who make a living from debunking astrology. None. Nadda.

You haven't looked very hard. There are many studies on astrology and several scientists who have made such studies a large part of their career. Dr Susan Blackmore, the well-known paranormal researcher finally called it quits after 30 years of study. She finally admitted that she could no longer maintain an open mind because in 30 years of experiments and research she never once found one single claim that could withstand scrutiny. Not one.

Here is a more complete list of skeptical scientists who have done research in astrology and other assorted paranormal quackery.

For whatever it's worth, I'm a PhD qualified scientist. I also know an astrologer with over 25 years experience who regularly complains to me that "The trouble with all you scientists is you don't have an open mind". I did have an open mind, but like Dr Blackmore I discovered what astrology is and how it works; and whichever way you look at it, you cannot disguise the fact that astrology is grade-one bullshit.