Astrology

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

1 Gravity
2 electromagnetism
3 strong force
4 weak force

Or its a “Force unknown to science”

Either a force unknown to science, or science doesn't understand one or more of the four known forces as well as it thinks it does.

As for the claim that "educated" people would not believe in astrology--education is generally a tool used to control and limit people's thought processes, not to enlighten them.

"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

No. I am suggesting that the continued financial viability of astrology--the fact that astrologers continue to earn a good living--lends credence to the idea that there is some evidence supporting astrology.

Or perhaps P.T. Barnum was, in fact, right and there really is one born every minute.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

No it's not science. I merely claim it may have some validity. We often have to make decisions without the luxury of facts verified by scientific method.

In life yes, but not in science.

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

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

By that measure, the whole UFO thing should be a slam dunk! I have hard proof that UFO's exist, of course, but there's no way I am showing any of you since I will be able to sell those secrets for $17,500,000 (SEVENTEEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND) dollars to the finance minister of Nigeria.

Let me guess. You're still trying to cash his $50 million dollar check so you can send him the change and the paper, right?

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

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

Or perhaps P.T. Barnum was, in fact, right and there really is one born every minute.

P.T. Barnum was in the entertainment business. He was being paid, in essence, to deceive others. No one gets too upset if an entertainer has a few tricks up their sleeve--in fact it is rather expected.

A professional astrologer, on the other hand, is being paid to help people. If they don't do a good job--if they take the attitude of "there's a sucker born every minute"--they will quickly find themselves out of work.

"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

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

In life yes, but not in science.

Absent clear scientific evidence either way, the decision of whether to accept astrology becomes a life decision, not a scientific decision.

"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

[billvon 3,120]

>No. I am suggesting that the continued financial viability of astrology--
>the fact that astrologers continue to earn a good living--lends credence to
>the idea that there is some evidence supporting astrology.

Again, financial support does not equal validity. Al Qaeda is fairly well funded compared to some astrology groups. That does not mean their philosophy is any more valid than more poorly funded organizations. Indeed, one could argue that it's not working out too well for them.

>There is simply no agreed-upon set of facts or theories surrounding
>UFOs like there is with astrology.

That's because you are not conversant with the various UFO theories. To someone who is into the whole UFO world, astrology is the field with no one set of theories, mutually contradictory beliefs and a total lack of coherence. It's all in your perceptions. And since in both cases there is no testable evidence, no way you can prove things one way or another, both points of view are equally valid.

But while we are here, what is your opinion on:

Tarot cards?
Ouija boards?
Predictions using yarrow stalks and the I Ching interpretations?

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

Quote

1 Gravity
2 electromagnetism
3 strong force
4 weak force

Or its a “Force unknown to science”

Either a force unknown to science, or science doesn't understand one or more of the four known forces as well as it thinks it does.

As for the claim that "educated" people would not believe in astrology--education is generally a tool used to control and limit people's thought processes, not to enlighten them.

Ok good, now where getting somewhere..

Ok so lets take a closer look at the 4 known forces, which I must add that we do know an incredible ammount about. In fact we know enough about certain key properties that we can rule out their use in astrology. (I posted a link earlier to Phil Plaits site badastronomy.com, which does a much better job the me in explaining this) but anyway……

1. Gravity. – The gravity of an object is subject to two things, its mass and its distance. The further the object the less the effects of gravity, the larger the object the greater the effects. So the when we look at the universe, the effect of the moons gravity on the Earth is the strongest, and all the other planets are a mere fraction. Therefore the Moon should dominate all other planets combined when it comes to astrology, but it doesn’t.
2. Electromagnetism – EM depends on two things also, electric charge and again distance. The electric charge comes from charged particles, electrons and protons. The problem here for EM is that most planets are electrically neutral. Planets like Jupiter have “magnetic fields”, and Jupiter’s is immense, but because it is so far away it has no effect on us. Our sun is by far the largest emitter of EM in out universe, its effects can be measured on earth. So the Sun should be source of all astrological effects on us, but again its not. Astrologers still claim the other planets have a larger if not equal share of the “astrological effect on us”.
3. Strong Force - This force binds neutrons and protons together in the cores of atoms and is a short range force, it weakens so rapidly with distance that it's essentially gone by the time you're a few billionths of a meter from the source!
4. Weak Force - This causes Beta decay (the conversion of a neutron to a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. It has a similar range as the Strong force.

So with confidence, and with known facts we can say that if there is any effect on us from the planets it is with out doubt none of the known forces causing it.

So that leaves “Force unknown to science”…. Know to the big problem with this theory (and there are many problems) but lets focus on one, is that according to astrologers whatever this force is it is not effected by distance. So today “Astronomers” have discovered over 150 planets orbiting other stars, not to mention the millions and millions of undiscovered planets. So why aren’t these included by astrologers???

Look at it the other way, why are astrologers not discovering planets? Surely their effects must show up in their data???????

So we have shown that it can be neither a known force or an unknown force that causes the astrological effects that are claimed.. so what does that leave…..NOTHING

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

1. Gravity. – The gravity of an object is subject to two things, its mass and its distance. The further the object the less the effects of gravity, the larger the object the greater the effects. So the when we look at the universe, the effect of the moons gravity on the Earth is the strongest, and all the other planets are a mere fraction. Therefore the Moon should dominate all other planets combined when it comes to astrology, but it doesn’t.

I thought the above was the Newtonian theory of gravitation.

The Einsteinian theory--general relativity--has, I thought, subsumed Newton. Einstein theorized that gravity is essentially a side effect of the curvature of spacetime that occurs in the vicinity of large (or small) objects.

So all it would take for astrological effects to occur through gravity would be if the curvature of spacetime effected by large objects were more complex than Einstein theorized. Einstein may have gotten it mostly right but maybe there were smaller effects that he overlooked.

"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

[JackC 0]

Quote

Astrology differs from some of these other 'fields' in that there is a core set of beliefs that most astrologers roughly agree on. It is therefore potentially subject to scientific inquiry in a way these other topics are not.

And astrology has been tested, exhaustively. It just doesn't work. You are clearly wrong.

The following is from http://www.astrosociety.org/education/resources/pseudobib.html#1

Perhaps the best known field of astronomical pseudo-science is the ancient idea that the position of the Sun, Moon, and planets at the moment we are born somehow affects our subsequent personality, career, or love-life. Astrology got a big media boost in 1988 when it was revealed that for a large part of his term, President's Reagan's schedule had been controlled by the predictions of a San Francisco astrologer (who had been on Nancy Reagan's payroll.) However, astrology is also the field in which the largest number of scientific tests have been performed and the evidence clearly demonstrates that astrological connections are no more than wishful thinking.

Books

Culver, Roger & Ianna, Philip Astrology: True or False. 1988, Prometheus Books. The best skeptical book about astrology, full of useful information.

Benski, Claude, et al. The Mars Effect. 1996, Prometheus Books. A rather technical discussion of the statistical test of Michel Gaugelin's claim of a neo-astrology, showing it does not work.

Biswas, S., et al., eds. Cosmic Perspectives. 1989, Cambridge U. Press. This anthology has an excellent review of the evidence against astrology by I. Kelly, R. Culver, and P. Loptson.

Gauguelin, Michel Dreams and Illusions of Astrology. 1979, Prometheus Books. A critique of astrology by a French statistician.

Jerome, Lawrence Astrology Disproved. 1977, Prometheus. A historical review.
Articles

Abell, G. "Astrology -- Its Principles and Relation and Nonrelation to Science" in The Science Teacher, Dec. 1974, p. 9. An early debunking article.

Bok, B., et al. "Objections to Astrology" in The Humanist, Sep/Oct. 1975. A special issue devoted in large part to this subject.

Carlson, S. "Astrology" in Experientia, vol. 44, p. 290 (1988). A clear review.

Carlson, S. "A Double Blind Test of Astrology" in Nature, vol. 318, p. 419 (5 Dec. 1985). A technical paper describing a good experiment examining whether astrology works.

Dean, G. "Does Astrology Need to be True?" in Skeptical Inquirer, Winter 86-87, p. 116; Spring 1987, p. 257. An important examination of tests about astrology.

Dean, G. & Kelly, I. "Does Astrology Work: Astrology and Skepticism 1975-2000" in Kurtz, Paul, ed. Skeptical Odysseys. 2001, Prometheus Books.

Dean, G., et al. "The Guardian Astrology Study: A Critique and Reanalysis" in The Skeptical Inquirer, Summer 1985, p. 327.

Dean, G., et al. "Astrology" in Gordon Stein, ed. The Encyclopedia of the Paranormal. 1996, Prometheus Books, p. 47-96. Long readable introduction.

Fraknoi, A. "Your Astrology Defense Kit" in Sky & Telescope, Aug. 1989, p. 146. An introductory article with some basic skeptical questions about astrology. (Available on the web at:
http://www.astrosociety.org/education/astro/act3/
astrology3.html#defense)

Fraknoi, A. "Astrology Versus Astronomy" in Astronomy, Jan. 1999, p. 102. Concise note.

Kelly, I. "Modern Astrology: A Critique" in Psychological Reports, vol. 81, p. 1035 (1997). An excellent review. (An expanded version can be found on the first web site recommended below.)

Kelly, I." Why Astrology Doesn't Work" in Psychological Reports, vol. 82, p. 527 (1998).

Kelly, I. "The Scientific Case Against Astrology" in Mercury, Nov/Dec. 1980, p. 135.

Kelly, I. "Astrology and Science: A Critical Examination" in Psychological Reports, vol. 44, p. 1231 (1979).

Kruglak, H. & O'Bryan, M. "Astrology in the Astronomy Classroom" in Mercury, Nov/Dec 1977, p. 18.

Kurtz, P. & Fraknoi, A. "Scientific Tests of Astrology Do Not Support Its Claims" in Skeptical Inquirer, Spring 1985, p. 210.

Kurtz, P., et al. "Astrology and the Presidency" in Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1988, p. 3. A good summary of the controversy concerning astrology in the Reagan White House.

Lovi, G. "Zodiacal Signs Versus Constellations" in Sky & Telescope, Nov. 1987, p.507.

Mc Gervey, J. "A Statistical Test of Sun-sign Astrology" in Skeptical Inquirer, Spring/Summer 1977, p. 49.

Nienhuys, J. "The Mars Effect in Retrospective" in Skeptical Inquirer, Nov/Dec. 1997, p. 24. Good summary of the current research on what seemed to be one lone test confirming astrology. (see also, Dean, G. "Is the Mars Effect a Social Effect" in Skeptical Inquirer, May/June 2002, p. 33.)

Rotton, J. "Astrological Forecasts and the Commodity Market" in Skeptical Inquirer, Summer 1985, p. 339.

Web Sites:

A long analysis of the history of and problems with sun-sign columns: http://www.astrology-and-science.com

In general the most useful site for information on testing astrology is http://www.astrology-and-science.com

The Real Constellations of the Zodiac: http://www.griffithobs.org/IPSRealConst.html A 1977 article by Lee Shapiro discussing when the Sun actually passes through each constellation.

The Astrotest: http://home.wxs.nl/~skepsis/astrot.html Dutch skeptic Rob Nanninga describes an experimental test of astrology done with the help of astrologers.

The Real Romance in the Stars:
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/
Work/Articles/1995-12romance_in_stars.htm Biologist Richard Dawkins wrote an angry column to a British newspaper flirting with astrology and you can it here with a few later notes.

Horoscopes Versus Telescopes: http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/11/11.html An issue of the ASP's newsletter for astronomy teachers devoted to debunking astrology.

[philh 0]

Relativity has replaced Newtonian physics as a more accurate theory of gravity. But that doesnt change the inverse square law, its still valid. So your statement is correct but irrelevant.

"So all it would take for astrological effects to occur through gravity would be if the curvature of spacetime effected by large objects were more complex than Einstein theorized. Einstein may have gotten it mostly right but maybe there were smaller effects that he overlooked"

Let me rephraspe your comment is a more meanigfull way,
all it would take is a completley new set of physical laws or to ignore all the data and re write the laws of physcis because a bunch of suckers like Nanacy Reagan et al go to an Astrologer for advice.
Popularity does not mean validity.
Remember yor history of science. Rerlativity and Newtonian gravity agree in most cases, its only in a few extreme cases where they disagree. Thats why relativity was discovered so much later than Newton's theory. Its effects are much harder to percieve and as a consequence has very little effect on our lives. Any new modification to physical laws (and sucha mdofication is not impossible) will likely have even less notcieable effects and therefore will have close to 0 relevance to our day to day lives.


"But if I came up with evidence proving the validity of astrology, the last thing I would do would be to publish it in a statistics journal. Instead I would sell what I know to a select circle of wealthy clients who would be able to benefit from my insights. "

"In short, I would not give away my trade secrets by publishing them in a journal! "

So what you are saying is if there were any data validating astrology one wouldnt see it in the data, thats pretty convenient. Its really no different to claiming I have an invisble unicorn that humans cant perceive

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

No. I am suggesting that the continued financial viability of astrology--the fact that astrologers continue to earn a good living--lends credence to the idea that there is some evidence supporting astrology. I have at least a little faith in people and I believe if they are willing to let an astrologer part them from their hard earned money, there must be a reason and they are not totally fools.

So when you get emails from Nigerian Generals needing to smuggle their money out of the country using your account (because a friend recommended you don't you know), or Senegalese astronauts stuck in space who need you to redeem their flight pay before they can get a shuttle flight back to earth you actually think that some number of these scams must be true? (After all, thousands of people fall for them)

Or do you lend equal credence to every 'paranormal' parlour trickster who manages to fleece gullible punters out of a few quid? Equal credence to psychics, mediums, ghost hunters, preachers of every religion under the sun (even the scientologists), comet cultists, snake charmers, moon landing conspiracy theorists and miracle healers? (After all, millions of people get taken in by them)

Face it, the overwhelming gullibility of the genral populace will never, ever be positive evidence of the truth value of any claim.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

P.T. Barnum was in the entertainment business. He was being paid, in essence, to deceive others. No one gets too upset if an entertainer has a few tricks up their sleeve--in fact it is rather expected.

A professional astrologer, on the other hand, is being paid to help people. If they don't do a good job--if they take the attitude of "there's a sucker born every minute"--they will quickly find themselves out of work.

Or, they are very good entertainers (actors) and are quite able to present a compassionate face while secretly laughing themselves sick over how credulous their clients are.

Or perhaps some really do believe what they preach. Still absolutely no evidence for it being correct.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[philh 0]

The best way to decieve others, is first deiceve yourself.