Astrology = Garbage

[Unregistered]

Something our esteemed Bad Astronomer seems to have overlooked in his debunk of Astrology is that there is an extremely powerful force, or set of forces, operating right here on earth that could explain most of Astrology's claims. When you consider the effects of group psychology and the fact that humans seem to have an instinct to believe in a higher power guiding our destinies as well as our "ability" to perceive even one result in line with our preconceptions as "confirmation" while dismissing all anomolous results as unworthy of attention... It's not difficult to envision how those early scholar priests were able to build up such a body of psychological "knowledge" based on seasonal movements of the sun, moon and visible planets. Perhaps some of their observations were even valid and based on seasonal differences in child-rearing at times when resources were relatively scarce or plentiful. We may never know for certain whether that is the case, but it seems clear to me that Astrology became its own self-fulfilling prophecy due to cultural expectations that children would exhibit the qualities of character related to their "birth sign".

[Neverfly]

I strongly agree, esteemed unregistered user.:p
I am often amazed at group psychology and peoples willingness to go along with it.
It amazes me even more when people cannot look around and see this for themselves.

I don't think it's because they are unable- it's because they don't want to.

The one major perversity of the human mind.

[Unregistered]

"almost thou persuadest me...." to register as a user. ;-)

I'll have to lurk for a while and observe the relative proportion of genuine inquiry and discussion vs. flamewar and slugfest.

[Gillianren]

If you see a flamewar, report it to the mods. It's against the rules.

[geonuc]

I don't think the BA overlooked anything. Certainly not what you suggest.

[Paul Beardsley]

It's important to remember that astrology is not a coherent body of bogus knowledge.

I remember hearing that during the Second World War, the allies asked an astrologer to cast Hitler's horoscope. The reason being, they knew Hitler believed in astrology, so if they knew what he'd been told, they could make an educated guess about his movements.

Unfortunately, there is no correlation between what any two astrologers say, so the plan didn't work.

(How was that - I mentioned Hitler in an internet discussion without it being an instance of Godwin's Law!)

[Celestial Mechanic]

It's important to remember that astrology is not a coherent body of bogus knowledge. [Snip!]
That has been my consistent beef with astrology -- that there is no "paper trail" leading back to the first person to write, for example, "Jupiter in trine with Mercury in a water sign means such and such." Nowhere is there a database with all of these so-called "bits of wisdom" compiled together for cross-referencing and checking. Everybody, whether Chaldean, Indian, Chinese, or Greek pretty much made it all up as they went along.

[ToSeek Unregistered]

Hmm, I can log out and still post. Not good!

[Gillianren]

This has been true in this subforum for ages.

[Jeff Root]

That has been my consistent beef with astrology -- that there is no
"paper trail" leading back to the first person to write, for example,
"Jupiter in trine with Mercury in a water sign means such and such."
Nowhere is there a database with all of these so-called "bits of wisdom"
compiled together for cross-referencing and checking. Everybody,
whether Chaldean, Indian, Chinese, or Greek pretty much made it all
up as they went along.
Does that mean that each individual astrologer makes up everything
ad hoc? I've wondered about this for quite a while -- pre-Internet,
anyhow. I have never heard of a reference text for astrological
interpretation, which would seem to be as essential as a reference
for the positions of the planets. Surely they must have some
kind of reference for interpretation? Or hundreds of conflicting
references, at least? I've never heard of them.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Gillianren]

the lack of coherence is simply an indicator of Astrology's place in history as the basis for modern psychology.. or psychobabble at least. Sincere apologies if any of you are practicing shrinks.

No. Just one of the many, many people who have benefited from modern psychology.

[Neverfly]

does this mean I'm no longer esteemed, Neverfly? :rolleyes:
Nope. You're now an esteemed member.
Welcome to BAUT.


the lack of coherence is simply an indicator of Astrology's place in history as the basis for modern psychology.. or psychobabble at least. Sincere apologies if any of you are practicing shrinks.
I'm not- so I will agree with you.

A person can easily see those same trends and patterns of mentality in everyday conversation. People look for and 'find' indicators of belief in just about everything.
I think if I were to try to sum it all up in one word it would be "Selfishness."
It's all about making things about how you want them to be.

It's really the hard part about being human. I can fall into this trap just as easily as anyone whom I can point my finger at. And it really takes daily maintenance to not fall into it- even though I still do and have to back up...
and try going at it again.

A Dumb Example:
I went outside to do some yardwork and it started raining. I say to myself, "Figures, it only rains when I try to work outside..."

That lack of coherence really is the foundation but no one really wants to see it either.
Instead, they look to justify it with further lack of coherence by looking for patterns within it. And when, inevitably, they find some pattern they invented, they think they are a genius that stumbled onto something.

[Neverfly]

Does that mean that each individual astrologer makes up everything
ad hoc? I've wondered about this for quite a while -- pre-Internet,
anyhow. I have never heard of a reference text for astrological
interpretation, which would seem to be as essential as a reference
for the positions of the planets. Surely they must have some
kind of reference for interpretation? Or hundreds of conflicting
references, at least? I've never heard of them.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

It's like Fantasia.
All you have to do is BELIEVE.
When believers talk, they tend to support each other in their beliefs rather than argue.

Put two very different astrologers into the same room and they will leave clapping each other on the back for finding mysterious patterns in stellar movements.http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/106.gif

[Paul Leeks]

I'm not sure if its garbage, astrology

read: The secret Zodiacs of Washington DC

also 12 is esoteric number (zodiac),12 Knights of the round table, 12 knights of the Order of the Death's Head (Himmlers SS at Wewelsburg castle)

I keep an open mind

[Neverfly]

You need a screen door for that open mind of yours Paul Leeks.

The bugs are getting in.:neutral:

[Neverfly]

You haven't been in the room with two equally rabid true believers of different flavors of Astrology, have you, Neverfly? The behavior you'll observe will assuredly be almost, but not quite, completely unlike patting one another on the back. :lol:

Ok, well.. You got me on the flavors...:whistle:

Like putting a Wiccan in a room with a Druid.

So yes, there is variance there. But you can observe right here on BAUT the effect of putting believers together in a thread in CT or ATM etc, in which they may differ in their views but Ultimately are supportive of each other anyway.

[Paul Beardsley]

I had a response to this post that ran afoul of the anti-spam filter, Jeff.
You should be all right once you've made another three posts. Then the automated system will know you're not a spammer and will allow you to post URLs.


A "good" diviner uses subtle cues of body language and subliminal gestures while interacting with the subject to determine which of the keywords and phrases related to their divinatory medium of choice will invoke the desired responses in the client.
This is very plausible.

As a teacher of adults, I was surprised at how quickly I started to pick up on these cues/clues. (I've only been teaching since 2005; prior to that I was in engineering and didn't think of myself as a "people person".) Many is the time I've known exactly what incorrect answer a student has been about to give. Often I can see from the student's eyes the exact moment when bewilderment has switched to understanding.

It often feels how I'd imagine telepathy to be.

[Paul Beardsley]

I'm not sure if its garbage, astrology
As far as I can see there's no mechanism that would allow astrology to work.

And there's no evidence that it works in spite of the lack of an obvious mechanism.


read: The secret Zodiacs of Washington DC
Why?


also 12 is esoteric number (zodiac)
If you ignore Ophiuchus...

[gzhpcu]

On another post, someone proposed and conducted a "scientific test of (Jungian) astrology" which was extremely interesting to me. I believe this test ultimately gave a negative (rather than a null) result because the "astrologer" was separated from the test subjects by the medium of the internet.

That was a test Grey proposed to set up because I had made a statement that I thought "there might be something to astrology". The results showed the contrary, which I readily accepted, and realized that with so many parameters returned from an interpretation, I had probably just been concentrating on the inevitable "hits".

[gzhpcu]

Gz, The reason you thought "there might be something to astrology", if I read Grey's thread correctly, was due to a personal experience you had with casting charts for yourself and people you know. Yes?


Yes, correct. Coupled with tending to not attach importance to the discrepancies... Initially extremely skeptic, then "surprised" at the inevitable hits...

[Paul Beardsley]

Tesarra, it's very pleasing to read a new member's posts and think, "This poster is intelligent and articulate." I hope you stay.

[Jeff Root]

Thanks for the info about astrology interpretation standards... :)

Thinking about the methods used by astrologers to interpret the data
they begin with, a very short story by Isaac Asimov came to mind:
'The Machine that Won the War'.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Gillianren]

I was actually one of the participants in that little study, and the thing that I think surprised most of us was all of those, myself included, who wanted a "none of the above" option.

[gzhpcu]

Which maybe in retropsect is not so surprising, considering the randomness of the "inevitable" hits. A little here, a little there, but odds are against a good match...

[johanneshornyoma]

I strongly agree, esteemed unregistered user.:p
I am often amazed at group psychology and peoples willingness to go along with it.
It amazes me even more when people cannot look around and see this for themselves.

I don't think it's because they are unable- it's because they don't want to.

The one major perversity of the human mind.
that's not all not all…… :(.

[Neverfly]

that's not all not all…… :(.

I'm a wee bit confused...

Are you saying that is not what is going on in the case of Astrology?

Welcome to BAUT by the way:) I remember your first post made a good point about extremist ideals in desperation in an OTB thread.

[Jeff Root]

I'm guessing that what was meant is that the perversity you mention
is far from being the only major perversity of the human mind.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Neverfly]

I'm guessing that what was meant is that the perversity you mention
is far from being the only major perversity of the human mind.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Oh.
True. Good thinking Jeff Root.

Since my brain lacks perversity, I have a hard time keeping track of the Human Condition:whistle:

[Jeff Root]

Your brain lacks perversity, and I'm the most hard-working, active,
go-getting overachiever I know.

Is there a retching smiley face?

Call me "Jeff" and I'll call you "Neverfly", okay? Since I seem to be the
only Jeff posting, I can get away with it.

BTW, I started adding the "in Minneapolis" to my signature after The Bill
White of Miami explained years ago in Fidonet that he added his location
to his signature to distinguish himself from another Bill White who posted
in some other Fidonet echo. I thought it was a good idea, so I've been
doing it ever since. And I sometimes referred to him as "TBW", which is
uncannily similar to how I started this paragraph...

-- Jeff, in cognito

[parallaxicality]

I've been to both astrologers and psychoanalysts (in fact, having been born with clinical depression, I have spent most of my life in psychotherapy) and I can say that the average astrologer has a far firmer grasp of the human condition than the average psychoanalyst.

[Disinfo Agent]

Con men usually have an excellent grasp on human frailties.

[Canis Lupus]

Con men usually have an excellent grasp on human frailties.

Too true, and astrology is probably without exception nothing better than someone sharing some general insights into life, which people can fit into something or other in their life.

That said, I can see a justification for astrological thinking in attempting to define human behavior and action according to some cosmic rules. There are general types of people to be found beyond culture and location, and to some extent it is seeking to explain that occurrence. Whether or not it is more useful than simply encouraging people to take responsibility for their own actions, do the best with their talents and respective circumstances, acting as reasonably as possible, is another issue. I can only see it as being in the remotest bit useful to the broadest of thinking, in trying to work out some type of objective scheme which places us within the overall order of the universe. That's a big ask and I doubt whether anyone I know who believes in astrology or practices it, is any better equipped than those who approach such questions through more established philosophical systems.

[HenrikOlsen]

I've been to both astrologers and psychoanalysts (in fact, having been born with clinical depression, I have spent most of my life in psychotherapy) and I can say that the average astrologer has a far firmer grasp of the human condition than the average psychoanalyst.
Though the techniques are somewhat similar, the average psychoanalyst isn't trying to do a cold reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading).

[DrRocket]

That said, I can see a justification for astrological thinking in attempting to define human behavior and action according to some cosmic rules. There are general types of people to be found beyond culture and location, and to some extent it is seeking to explain that occurrence. Whether or not it is more useful than simply encouraging people to take responsibility for their own actions, do the best with their talents and respective circumstances, acting as reasonably as possible, is another issue. I can only see it as being in the remotest bit useful to the broadest of thinking, in trying to work out some type of objective scheme which places us within the overall order of the universe. That's a big ask and I doubt whether anyone I know who believes in astrology or practices it, is any better equipped than those who approach such questions through more established philosophical systems.

In my experience wackos who believe in magic or supernatural explanations for their own failure to take responsibility for their actions are not equipped to do much except eat and sleep, relying on others for the resources to do even that.

[Adrian Morgan]

Following the Bad Astronomer's recent (24/05/2010) article about Upsilon Andromedae, I engaged in a little hobby of mine and figured out what constellation the Sun is part of according to Upsilon Andromedan astrology.

It turns out that the Sun is part of the "Walking Pterosaur" constellation, as shown in the following image.

http://outerhoard.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/from-upsilon-andromedae.png

I've added this to a collection (http://outerhoard.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/our-place-in-the-sky/) I started in 2008.

[north]

astrology is based on observation of the solar system and then observing the Nature of the behaviour of the people born at these moments , over a very long period of time

patterns and consistancy produces certain traits in people

no different from the farmers almanac really , which is based on long term observations

I'm a Libra , I have always been balanced in the sence that I look at both sides of the coin before I make a judgement , and this attitude of mine has been there before I found out what astrology was

[Gillianren]

Yes, but if you studied all Libras, they wouldn't all have the same trait, and if you studied the general population of not-Libras, a lot of them would. No study has actually ever shown a correlation of any kind unless it had serious scientific flaws. So, you know, that's better than anecdotal evidence.

[north]

but you are speculating that the same trait could be found in non-libras

and there has been a study of this kind , history of observations over thousands of yrs

hence why some have the traits or the charactoristics they have

lets face it , if the MOON causes tides , for example ,there is NO reason to think that the biology or living things are not also affected by the aligment of the positions of all the planets and moons as well , its just common sense , really

[Jeff Root]

North,

I'm surprised that you haven't learned by now that what you consider
to be "common sense" is usually such total nonsense that hardly anyone
bothers to criticize it. It is so loopy that it doesn't need to be criticized.
Some people have common sense, some people just think they do.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Gillianren]

Actually, there are lots of reasons. Like the fact that, as has been pointed out many times, the doctor/midwife has a greater gravitational effect on the baby at birth than the planet Jupiter. Yeah, the Sun and Moon can have influences. Beyond that, you're stretching.

And you know, I look at both sides of an issue before making a decision, too. I try not to leap into things based on emotion. Do you really honestly believe everyone with that trait can be crammed into one section of a calendar? If so, guess my birthday.

[north]

Jeff

the thing is Jeff , to think that the influence of our solar system has NO influence on the biology of the living things that live on our planet , but at the same time causes , at the very least tides is short sighted to say the least

[north]

really what I'm I really stretching ? just think about it in depth , think of the physical dynamics associated with all that is going on in the solar system

it makes no sense to think that it stops with the tides here on Earth


be real Gillianren

[Gillianren]

How about you provide some data? Some evidence? A mechanism? (As we've established, if gravity is the mechanism, as it is with tides, every human around during pregnancy and childbirth would be more important than anything but Sun, Earth, and Moon.) Anything which brings it into the realm of science and not pseudoscience.

[north]

there already has been over a few thousand yrs of observation

[Jeff Root]

The gravitational cause of the tides is simple. The gravitational
attraction between the Moon and the Sun and water on Earth's
surface causes the water to pile up by a few inches across a
hemisphere of the surface. As the Earth rotates the center of
the pile moves across the Earth. When the pile of water reaches
a shore it can't move inland, so it piles up even more to a height
of several feet.

Gravitational force of the Moon and Sun on any individual water
molecule are extremely tiny. Even the force on a whole swimming
pool of water is so miniscule that it can't be detected. The force
on an individual person is vastly smaller than the force on all the
water in a swimming pool. The force on a neuron in a person's
brain is vastly smaller than that. The force of Jupiter's gravity
on a neuron is vastly smaller than *that*. The force of Saturn's
gravity on a neuron is vastly smaller than *that*. And the force
of a star's gravity on a neuron is vastly smaller than *that*".
As Gillian said, the gravitational force caused by any person in
the room where the birth takes place is greater than that from
any celestial body except the Earth, because the person in the
room is so much closer.

And the Moon is always there. Its gravity is always there. It is
always pulling on you, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Same
with the Sun and the planets and stars. Their gravitational pulls
on an individual hardly change at all over time, and are nearly
identical for everyone in the world.

The effects of acceleration on a fetus when the mother sits down
or stands up or turns around are far greater than the gravitational
effects of any body except Earth.

The only way you can get other celestial bodies to affect the way
a person or animal thinks is by assuming the effect is magic. That
is, the effect cannot be detected in any way except for the change
in human behavior. You will get out of bed 20 seconds sooner on
August 17th than you otherwise would have, because undetectible
forces from Venus and Jupiter will cause you to do so. This can
be known by me because I am an expert in the subject. I know
where Venus and Jupiter will be on that date, and I know how
their undetectible forces influence people's behavior.

Common sense.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[north]

yet tides come and go Jeff

the Nova Scotia tides are obviously part of a cycle

Jeff its just generally guy , its not mean't to be an absolute , just a pattern of Human behaviour , observered , which is generally consistent , and aligments of the planets made sense , they coincided

life is an energy all of its own

they didn't know why but they just put two and two together and came up with an explaination

and for me I'm about as Libra as one can get

[Jeff Root]

Well, I'm an Aquarius. Aquarians don't believe in astrology.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Gillianren]

there already has been over a few thousand yrs of observation

Yup. There's hundreds of years of claims that bloodletting is good medicine. People will swear to you that homeopathy works. Phlogiston. The aether. There are quite a lot of things for which there's anecdotal evidence, and has been for years, but which in fact turns out to be wrong. Have you guessed my birthday yet?

[Van Rijn]

there already has been over a few thousand yrs of observation

And over that time, there have been a number of changing astrological systems.

north, it's time to look at the other side of this argument. The key one being lack of support when objectively tested.

[Strange]

I'm a Libra , I have always been balanced in the sence that I look at both sides of the coin before I make a judgement , and this attitude of mine has been there before I found out what astrology was

What makes you think that being a Libra is more relevant than any other astrological system? What year were you born: dog, monkey, lion? Is that more or less significant? Why? What is your blood group? Is that more or less significant? Why?

[Strange]

Jeff its just generally guy , its not mean't to be an absolute , just a pattern of Human behaviour , observered , which is generally consistent , and aligments of the planets made sense , they coincided

Except, when you do a real analysis of character traits and date of birth: there is no correlation.


and for me I'm about as Libra as one can get

Dunno. You sound like you have already made up your mind and are unwilling to consider alternatives. Wouldn't that make you more like a Taurus (or something)?

[HenrikOlsen]

I used to be really indecisive, until I changed to being a Leo, now it's not a problem anymore.

[Paul Beardsley]

it makes no sense to think that it stops with the tides here on Earth
Even when the evidence indicates that it stops with the tides here on Earth?

[R.A.F.]

...life is an energy all of its own.

Care to explain exactly what you mean by this??


...they didn't know why but they just put two and two together and came up with an explaination.

To be considered scientific, you must "show your work". How do you know your answer is correct, if you don't know how you arrived at it?

[LotusExcelle]

North - you need data. Can you find or supply any? In what way are the descriptions of Leo, Cap, etc different than a short cold-read? Are you familiar with the cold-read effect?

[HenrikOlsen]

they didn't know why but they just put two and two together and came up with an explaination
The problem is they added two and two and the result came out platypus. Then they made up an explanation.

[Strange]

The problem is they added two and two and the result came out platypus. Then they made up an explanation.

I am a Platypus, we share traits with a number of different signs: Aquarius, The Duck, The Milkgiver, etc.

[Disinfo Agent]

there already has been over a few thousand yrs of observationThe best observations we have made contradict astrology (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/103401-How-do-we-answer-the-astrologers-on-this-little-lot?p=1722860#post1722860). If you refuse to deal with this, it is you, not the opponents of astrology, who is missing the lessons of history.

Another incorrect attitude in your posts is the underlying idea that showing that a hypothesis is plausible is enough to show that it is true. No, you need hard evidence first. Plausibility is just a zero-grade test; if your theory manages to pass it (and in the case of astrology even this could be contested), then you still have many other kinds of tests ahead of you before your theory can "graduate".

[ScienceIsReligion]

oh my oh my!
so much non-sense going on here!

1. science is nothing but religion. science is a bunch of beliefs. at the basis of what is commonly called "science" are a series (quite a lot actually) of completely unquestioned beliefs. the belief in the concept of causality for example. the belief in an objective "reality", etc.
those are just that: beliefs. they are postulations. that just as a general introduction. a lot more can be said about it. but not now.

2. i have studied math and physics. i LOVE science, especially physics and astronomy and i am educated in the religion called science. my mind easily works with abstract concepts and algorithms. it is very entertaining.
but i have realized science to be what it is: nothing but another religion. the most popular these days - for sure - but at the end of the day it is nothing but a bunch of beliefs! chew on that for a day or two or more.

3. on the debunker article regarding astrology:
your basic premise ("but they all operate under a very broad working assumption: there is some sort of force from the heavens that influences us here on Earth.") is completely wrong:
only people who don't fully understand astrology would word it that way.
astrology simply states that the PATTERNS observed in the sky and amongst the planets correspond with patterns observable in human behavior.
i would agree that the assumption that the planets "emit" forces that influence us is far fetched and probably "wrong" ("right" and "wrong" are also just concepts of the mind, beliefs in other words).
the basic correlation of patterns observed amongst astronomical objects and patterns in human behavior is something that can be observed and worked with. what can i say? i was VERY skeptical at first. but there simply are correlations between those patterns.
in other words:
this entire article is null and void because the premise is wrong. you have not debunked astrology. you have debunked your misunderstanding of astrology.

cheers.

[Paul Beardsley]

oh my oh my!
so much non-sense going on here!

1. science is nothing but religion. science is a bunch of beliefs.

...and so on.

Old and lame stuff, SIL. Must try harder.

[LotusExcelle]

oh my oh my!
so much non-sense going on here!

1. science is nothing but religion. science is a bunch of beliefs. at the basis of what is commonly called "science" are a series (quite a lot actually) of completely unquestioned beliefs. the belief in the concept of causality for example. the belief in an objective "reality", etc.
those are just that: beliefs. they are postulations. that just as a general introduction. a lot more can be said about it. but not now.

2. i have studied math and physics. i LOVE science, especially physics and astronomy and i am educated in the religion called science. my mind easily works with abstract concepts and algorithms. it is very entertaining.
but i have realized science to be what it is: nothing but another religion. the most popular these days - for sure - but at the end of the day it is nothing but a bunch of beliefs! chew on that for a day or two or more.

3. on the debunker article regarding astrology:
your basic premise ("but they all operate under a very broad working assumption: there is some sort of force from the heavens that influences us here on Earth.") is completely wrong:
only people who don't fully understand astrology would word it that way.
astrology simply states that the PATTERNS observed in the sky and amongst the planets correspond with patterns observable in human behavior.
i would agree that the assumption that the planets "emit" forces that influence us is far fetched and probably "wrong" ("right" and "wrong" are also just concepts of the mind, beliefs in other words).
the basic correlation of patterns observed amongst astronomical objects and patterns in human behavior is something that can be observed and worked with. what can i say? i was VERY skeptical at first. but there simply are correlations between those patterns.
in other words:
this entire article is null and void because the premise is wrong. you have not debunked astrology. you have debunked your misunderstanding of astrology.

cheers.

Science has nothing to do with 'belief' in fact it seeks to expunge belief in favor of data. Science is not unquestioned in fact it is actively questioned at every turn as part of the entire process. Science relies on the influx of data and the changing of theories and postulates based on that data. It does not hold that anything that is 'believed' is valid: it must be *proven* through experiment, testing, re-testing, peer-review, etc etc.

You are claiming that astronomical objects influence human behavior in a direct pattern that is identifiable, is this correct? Offer evidence that is testable. That is a direct question/request.

[NEOWatcher]

1. science is nothing but religion. science is a bunch of beliefs...
Science is predictive, testable, and repeatable all at the same time.
Religion may be predictive, and maybe even repeatable, but we can not make repeatable tests of the religious beliefs.

[Swift]

ScienceIsRelgion,

First, welcome to BAUT.

oh my oh my!
so much non-sense going on here!

1. science is nothing but religion. science is a bunch of beliefs. at the basis of what is commonly called "science" are a series (quite a lot actually) of completely unquestioned beliefs. the belief in the concept of causality for example. the belief in an objective "reality", etc.
those are just that: beliefs. they are postulations. that just as a general introduction. a lot more can be said about it. but not now.

2. i have studied math and physics. i LOVE science, especially physics and astronomy and i am educated in the religion called science. my mind easily works with abstract concepts and algorithms. it is very entertaining.
but i have realized science to be what it is: nothing but another religion. the most popular these days - for sure - but at the end of the day it is nothing but a bunch of beliefs! chew on that for a day or two or more.

This point has nothing to do with the thread and is a serious hijacking. I also note you already posted this in the welcoming thread. - you don't have to post it everywhere. And I will note that it is seriously Against The Mainstream (ATM) and will be treated as such (see our rules noted below).


3. on the debunker article regarding astrology:
your basic premise ("but they all operate under a very broad working assumption: there is some sort of force from the heavens that influences us here on Earth.") is completely wrong:
only people who don't fully understand astrology would word it that way. astrology simply states that the PATTERNS observed in the sky and amongst the planets correspond with patterns observable in human behavior.

This is at least on topic, but it is again seriously ATM. If you want to present this idea, you must do it in the ATM forum.

I very strongly suggest that you read The Rules for posting to this board (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/32864-Rules-For-Posting-To-This-Board) before you post any further.

[ScienceIsReligion]

firstly, i'd like to apologize for posting without having read the forum rules. that was wrong and rude of me. i have now read the rules and i understand and fully accept them. they are good rules.
not an excuse, really, but an explanation: i had a seriously "bad hair day" yesterday and i stumbled across the astrology article by phil plait and angered by its lack of understanding i started posting right away... not good.

i do disagree, however, that my 3rd point is "seriously atm".
i know it is a common misconception that astrology claims that there are direct forceful influences from the stars and planets on human behavior.
this is an INCORRECT definition. wikipedia, for example, shows a proper wording:
"Astrology is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs which hold that the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details can provide information about personality, human affairs and other "earthly" matters."

all it says is that the relative position of celestial bodies and related details CAN PROVIDE INFORMATION about human behavior. it clearly avoids the definition that was used as the premise for the debunker article by phil.
the wikipedia definition is the correct definition of astrology and it is not atm.
if you still think so, swift, please explain.

phil simply debunked his (and, granted, many other people's) MISconception of astrology. my statement, then, that the article is null and void because the premise is wrong, still holds.
my other points were prompted by assumptions phil makes in his article. for example, the assumption that there are only 4 fundamental forces in the universe. how do we know? we don't. how could we possible know, since we know virtually nothing about the universe (although many think we do). the assumption that there are only 4 fundamental forces is simply a belief.

but i accept that this might be a discussion better had in the atm forum, although i want to state it is not AGAINST the mainstream. i simply want to encourage to look BEYOND the mainstream. this is a subtle but nevertheless important distinction that often gets overlooked because many people tend to get very emotional about such issues (i am not immune to that very human dis-ease myself).

@LotusExcelle:

Science has nothing to do with 'belief' in fact it seeks to expunge belief in favor of data.

i have been trained in scientific methods for many years. what many scientists don't realize, however, is how many beliefs actually flow into the collection and interpretation of data. i will most likely open a thread in the atm section to discuss this in detail as i believe it is a very important discussion to be had. i am absolutely not against science! i cherish it but there are serious (possibly inherent) limitations in the scientific method and it is important to be aware of them.


You are claiming that astronomical objects influence human behavior in a direct pattern that is identifiable, is this correct? Offer evidence that is testable. That is a direct question/request.

no, i am not claiming that astronomical objects INFLUENCE human behavior. i am saying that in my experience there is a correlation between the patterns observable in astronomical objects and the patterns in human behavior. where this correlation comes from i have no idea, really, except for a general sense that things in this universe are connected in ways that almost entirely elude the vast majority of humans. to my utter fascination physics - especially quantum physics - is finding out about these things. very slowly, but surely. see entanglement for example. entirely inexplicable with concepts of the mind, only vaguely describable in math. and yet entanglement hints very strongly at the fact that we know so VERY little about what we call reality. and that is my main passion: what is REALLY going on?
as i said: i will probably open a thread about this in the atm section.

[Paul Beardsley]

Regarding science as belief:

If electromagnetism is a matter of faith, can people who don't believe in it (or even know about it) travel on electric trains?

Are lasers a matter of faith? Can people who don't believe in photons use a CD player?

Can people who don't believe in the genome project benefit from gene therapy? Can people who don't believe in the laws of planetary motion see pictures taken of Mars by space probes? Do planes need belief to fly? How devout does a telescope owner have to be to make the light paths refract or reflect in the desired manner?


no, i am not claiming that astronomical objects INFLUENCE human behavior. i am saying that in my experience there is a correlation between the patterns observable in astronomical objects and the patterns in human behavior. where this correlation comes from i have no idea, really, except for a general sense that things in this universe are connected in ways that almost entirely elude the vast majority of humans.

If there is a correlation between the two patterns* it's either purely coincidental (in which case it's meaningless and can stop any time) or it is due to one influencing the other. Since astronomical patterns are determined, it would have to be astronomical patterns influencing human patterns.

You are like someone passionately arguing that there is no forest, merely a vast expanse of trees growing together.

*There is clearly no such influence.

[Strange]

the basic correlation of patterns observed amongst astronomical objects and patterns in human behavior is something that can be observed and worked with

Except, of course, there is no such correlation. As any scientific investigation will show.

[HenrikOlsen]

astrology simply states that the PATTERNS observed in the sky and amongst the planets correspond with patterns observable in human behavior.
And science tests to see if any such correspondence objectively exists and have been unable to find one.

[Gillianren]

And, of course, any claims about astrology only ever focus on one culture's beliefs in that area. You never see someone arguing that a Virgo who is also born in the Year of the Tiger must behave in a way different from a Virgo who is born in the Year of the Monkey. (Examples not chosen at random, incidentally; my sisters, who are very different in personality, have birthdays one day and six years apart.)

[Fortis]

i do disagree, however, that my 3rd point is "seriously atm".
i know it is a common misconception that astrology claims that there are direct forceful influences from the stars and planets on human behavior.
this is an INCORRECT definition. wikipedia, for example, shows a proper wording:
"Astrology is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs which hold that the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details can provide information about personality, human affairs and other "earthly" matters."

all it says is that the relative position of celestial bodies and related details CAN PROVIDE INFORMATION about human behavior. it clearly avoids the definition that was used as the premise for the debunker article by phil.
the wikipedia definition is the correct definition of astrology and it is not atm.
if you still think so, swift, please explain.

Which, if there is any truth to astrology leaves you with 3 options.

1) Human behaviour affects the postions of celestial bodies.
2) Celestial bodies affect human behaviours
3) There is a third factor that affects both human behaviour and celestial bodies.

Do you feel that we can discount option 1?

If yes, then we are left with options 2 and 3. Option 2 is the one that you claim was the target of Phil Plait's debunking and which you view as not a valid statement of what astrology is all about. Is that correct? If not, then surely Phil's argument stands? If, then, we must also discount option 2, then we are presumably left with option 3.

Is option 3 the description that best describes what is going on with astrology, at least from your persepctive?

If it is, then we have a very good understanding of the motion of celestial bodies, to the extent that we can predict their motions (at least to the level of accuracy required for astrological purposes) for many millenia. How, then, is option 3 a plausible option? There is no evidence of some influence, other than those that we know about, acting on celestial bodies (at least to the level of accuracy required for astrology.)

[Jeff Root]

Nice analysis, Fortis. I won't endorse it as being correct, but I don't
see anything wrong, misleading, or seriously incomplete about it.
Plus it is clear, concise, and expressed in a rational tone.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[ScienceIsReligion]

Regarding science as belief:

If electromagnetism is a matter of faith, can people who don't believe in it (or even know about it) travel on electric trains?

Are lasers a matter of faith? Can people who don't believe in photons use a CD player?

Can people who don't believe in the genome project benefit from gene therapy? Can people who don't believe in the laws of planetary motion see pictures taken of Mars by space probes? Do planes need belief to fly? How devout does a telescope owner have to be to make the light paths refract or reflect in the desired manner?

that response is just dumb and polemic and not worthy of any response. you know that, right?

[ScienceIsReligion]

Which, if there is any truth to astrology leaves you with 3 options.

1) Human behaviour affects the postions of celestial bodies.
2) Celestial bodies affect human behaviours
3) There is a third factor that affects both human behaviour and celestial bodies.

Do you feel that we can discount option 1?

If yes, then we are left with options 2 and 3. Option 2 is the one that you claim was the target of Phil Plait's debunking and which you view as not a valid statement of what astrology is all about. Is that correct? If not, then surely Phil's argument stands? If, then, we must also discount option 2, then we are presumably left with option 3.

Is option 3 the description that best describes what is going on with astrology, at least from your persepctive?

If it is, then we have a very good understanding of the motion of celestial bodies, to the extent that we can predict their motions (at least to the level of accuracy required for astrological purposes) for many millenia. How, then, is option 3 a plausible option? There is no evidence of some influence, other than those that we know about, acting on celestial bodies (at least to the level of accuracy required for astrology.)

thanks, fortis, for a rather clear and (at least somewhat) thoughtful response.

it does show, however, the very reason i came to this forum originally. namely a serious lack of imagination and willingness to look beyond that makes the modern scientific community so flawed and helpless when it comes to understanding the complexity of the appearance (i.e. world or universe) we seem to find ourselves in.
i don't know you, fortis, so this is not meant to be a personal attack at all. it is a criticism of the so-called scientific method and community (of which i still consider myself a part of).

you claim that i was left with only 3 options.
i'd say all 3 options are POSSIBLE.
how do you know human behavior does not effect the positions of celestial bodies? i am not saying it does. certainly given our current "understanding" of the 4 fundamental forces it seems extremely unlikely. but that is just the point.
our current understanding of the universe is EXTREMELY limited. we see contradictions all over the place. we see that 3 forces harmonize mathematically quite beautifully but gravity behaves like a punk that simply doesn't want to cooperate. with our current THEORIES it is even mathematically impossible to unify all 4 cause we end up with a division by 0. doesn't that show that there are fundamental flaws in our understanding? of course it does. we know so little and think ourselves so big (especially so-called scientists).

looking at the history of just the last 100 or so years, haven't we seen paradigm after paradigm collapse and destroyed? haven't we seen that things are connected in rather mysteries (even mystical) ways? take quantum entanglement for example. we can (to some extent) describe it mathematically. but do our minds have the capacity to understand it? not even remotely! our minds operate with concepts that have been shattered by developments in physics and astronomy. if anything, the last 100 years have shown that our minds are utterly ill-equipped to make sense of the world around us. and yet, we insist in using that insufficient tool. in fact, many even consider to not use that flawed tool as "un-scientific". that is heretic and preposterous! it is like trying to understand a delicate swiss watch with only a sledgehammer as a tool.

all i am saying is that there is a growing intuition in open-minded scientists that things are connected in ways that we don't even begin to understand or even imagine.

when i studied math & physics i was like most people here. i saw math and physics as the ultimate tools in understanding the world i find myself in. there was no such thing as a soul. what for? after all, it's all just chemical and physical processes in the brain, right? then things happened in my life and i was given the gift to also see with my "heart" (for lack of a better word) and i discovered truths way beyond the mind. i know, that this is tricky business and great caution is in order. i cannot just blindly trust my heart or my intuition. that tools needs to be sharpened and maintained by constant use. it has been wrong often. but all in all, it has been right A LOT more then wrong. most people here will not share this and think i am an idiot. so be it. but there may be a few here that have that growing suspicion that there is a lot more going on in this universe than meets the eye, or, rather, the mind. and it is to those i am speaking to.

as far as astrology is concerned:
i have had readings by astrologers that blew my mind. that took a lot because i was VERY skeptical. i am way too smart to be satisfied with general statements that apply to many people.
so, i came to the conclusion that there may be something to it. how it works, as i said, i have no idea except of an intuitive understanding of the inter-connectedness of ALL things.

honestly, folks: how many of you critics have done that? how many of you have had a reading by an established and experienced astrologer?
have you REALLY looked into astrology? or have you not just discarded it from the get-go because it doesn't fit your paradigms?
i know, there are many out there who have no real understanding of astrology or experience with it and yet practice it and spread obvious non-sense. it requires a well-established intuition on the part of an astrologer to make him or her a good one.
i have no idea how it works. i can only say i was astounded and that takes a lot in my case.

all i was trying to do here was to show that phil's highly flawed article is based on a wrong definition of astrology and thus null and void.

a REAL scientist will be open to investigate. a false scientist will see it does not agree with his or her closed-minded assumptions and paradigms and simply discard it.
which happens with so many phenomena these days:
ufos - there is clear evidence for it but false scientists simply close their minds because it cannot be and it doesn't fit their narrow imagination.
ghosts - many people have seem them. i have never seen one but i personally know many very intelligent people who have. doesn't that warrant an investigation even if false scientist lack the imagination for it?
telepathy and other such psychic abilities. i have clearly experienced telepathic contacts and so have many many people. doesn't that warrant an investigation?

science has degraded into a religion. there seems to be a shift, however, to a more open-minded investigation of topics that have long been artificially declared taboos. that shift is happening painfully slow, but at least it is happening.
this forum, however, doesn't seem to be the place for it. and sadly, many seem to be even proud of that! humans are truly amazing animals!

cheers and good luck.

[PetersCreek]

that response is just dumb and polemic and not worthy of any response. you know that, right?

Please review the rules again and watch your tone. Politeness is required.

[astromark]

We have talked of this at great length... now and previously. With scant regard for the delicate condition of the belief structures of some...

Yes, even I descended to hither to uncharted depths... I did use the word rubbish. Well no. Its not.

Its perfectly legitimate nonsense but is not rubbish... That the BBC apologized was in my view a mistake.

That they did that does not for a nano second suggest that astrology is a well based science. Its not...

Its not science based at all is it ?. ____________________________ :eh:______________________

I will wait patiently for some proof of facts as yet not provided.

However I do have the capacity to except the following... Its faith related.

When you believe in something with a religious passion... thats fine.

BUT why is there some insistence of truth to this subject. Where none can be found.

Any case for argument seems to fail to meet the science of test and question.. miserably.

I do not wish to enter a argument of logic because I have not found any substance to any argument for the astrology is real view.

I have just spent the last hour re reading this and the other threads... Still I heard no argument, convincing...

Poised ready to drop the lid on this garbage... mark.

________________ 'Clang.' :eh:_________________

[Strange]

as far as astrology is concerned:
i have had readings by astrologers that blew my mind. that took a lot because i was VERY skeptical. i am way too smart to be satisfied with general statements that apply to many people.
so, i came to the conclusion that there may be something to it. how it works, as i said, i have no idea except of an intuitive understanding of the inter-connectedness of ALL things.

I thought you were interested in a scientific approach, not "it happened to me so it must be true".


a REAL scientist will be open to investigate. a false scientist will see it does not agree with his or her closed-minded assumptions and paradigms and simply discard it.

So, as a "real scientist" do you have any evidence that there is a statistically significant correlation between the time someone is born and their character (or the events in their life)? And is this based on the Western idea of zodiacal signs, the Chinese idea of birth year, blood group or some other astroloigical system? Or are they all equally valid?

Or are you too closed-minded to admit that the scientific evidence does not support your assumptions and paradigms?


ufos - there is clear evidence for it but false scientists simply close their minds because it cannot be and it doesn't fit their narrow imagination.

If you have evidence for UFOS as something other than unidentified (I assume you mean aliens or similar), perhaps you would like to present it in the appropriate place.


ghosts - many people have seem them. i have never seen one but i personally know many very intelligent people who have. doesn't that warrant an investigation even if false scientist lack the imagination for it?
telepathy and other such psychic abilities. i have clearly experienced telepathic contacts and so have many many people. doesn't that warrant an investigation?

These things have been investigated by many people for many, many years. No significant results have been shown. I won't ask for evidence for this as it is off topic for this thread and the forum as a whole.


science has degraded into a religion.

Nonsense. Unless you have some evidence for that?


there seems to be a shift, however, to a more open-minded investigation of topics that have long been artificially declared taboos.

What taboos are there in science? People are occasionally cautious about publishing results relating certain characteristics to race, say. But that is more because they are worried about how the popular press will report it, rather than any taboos in science.
Scientists look at all sorts of things (look at the Ignoble prizes for examples of the more "far out" research that goes on).

[ScienceIsReligion]

I thought you were interested in a scientific approach, not "it happened to me so it must be true".
these experiences by themselves are not scientific proof but they are (or can be) nevertheless relevant to get you started in a certain direction of investigation - provided you are open to it that is.



So, as a "real scientist" do you have any evidence that there is a statistically significant correlation between the time someone is born and their character (or the events in their life)? And is this based on the Western idea of zodiacal signs, the Chinese idea of birth year, blood group or some other astroloigical system? Or are they all equally valid?

i don't know if there are studies performed by "mainstream science" regarding this question. do you? are you aware of all studies ever performed on this subject? does a member of "mainstream science" even dare to touch that subject or is the "scientific method" - which, one would hope, includes at least to take a look - sacrificed at the altar of personal reputation?
i see clear statistically relevant evidence in my peers, which - rightfully - does not hold up in scientific court but it is good enough for me. it made me look which in turn opened my mind.

astrology operates with patterns, rather abstract patterns that are hard to capture with words. it requires an intuitive approach. the willingness for this approach is largely absent in contemporary science.
the fact that some of these patterns are close to impossible to put into words is considered a fundamental flaw. isn't a lot what quantum physics teaches us or what einstein teaches us impossible to grasp with the mind? don't the concepts of the mind fail miserably? language is of the mind. the fact that something cannot be put into words does not make it any less real! isn't that clear to anybody who has seriously studied modern physics?
to exclude realities based on that is not scientific. it is narrow-minded. contemporary science needs new concepts and new paradigms to be ready for all those utterly mind-blowing and often stunningly beautiful things reality teaches us.
don't you feel it any more when you lie in silence under a clear starry night with the awesome and beautiful display of the milky way above you?
when we loose that sense of awe we loose the tools and the imagination to be open and listen.

this may sound like gibberish or rubbish to many of you on baut.
to me, however, it is painfully obvious that much of what i read on baut and what is present in "mainstream science" is not necessarily false but highly incomplete. incomplete to such a degree that it provides only a very distorted view of reality.

to not even be willing to consider it because YOU don't know of any study done by a mainstream scientist? the mainstream scientific method is way too limited in terms of the tools it provides to appropriately describe and investigate subjects like astrology. it is therefore - together with other subjects for which there is plenty of experiential evidence (but again no proper scientific framework) - declared a taboo.
it seems to me that the emotional makeup of many scientists today is of such a nature that it is found very hard to be open for new possibilities. to even CONSIDER them.



Or are you too closed-minded to admit that the scientific evidence does not support your assumptions and paradigms?

i am sure there are many areas in my life where i am closed-minded and stubborn etc. when it comes to finding the truth, however, i am not. i am passionate about it! wherever it takes me.

i asked it above already:
do you remember when you last lay in silence under a clear starry night with the awesome and beautiful display of the milky way above you?
and the sense of awe you felt?
and the sense that there is more going on than meets the eye or the mind?
that we know so little, really?

we know so little and yet we discard so much that may open the door to a greater (more complete) understanding.

[Paul Beardsley]

that response is just dumb and polemic and not worthy of any response. you know that, right?

As I am sure you realise, I was pointing out the absurdity of your claims and your chosen name.

Science and religion have some features in common, but the most important features are not common to both.


it is even mathematically impossible to unify all 4 cause we end up with a division by 0. doesn't that show that there are fundamental flaws in our understanding? of course it does.

Of course it does not. It shows there are limits to our understanding.


we know so little and think ourselves so big (especially so-called scientists).

Straw man.


looking at the history of just the last 100 or so years, haven't we seen paradigm after paradigm collapse and destroyed?

We've seen classical physics hold up well, with centuries-old principles getting us to other planets. We've seen refinements, and surprises when we've looked outside the limited range that we've previously considered. And occasionally we've seen things that have meant a major rethink - which is the great value of science, and one of the major things that makes it utterly unlike religion.


haven't we seen that things are connected in rather mysteries (even mystical) ways? take quantum entanglement for example. we can (to some extent) describe it mathematically.

So, because the quantum theory is a bit weird, astrology works? (I have heard that argument before.)


but do our minds have the capacity to understand it? not even remotely!

So what? There are many things we can't (or couldn't) understand. Gravity, for instance. But we can describe how it behaves (and how it doesn't behave) and develop technology based on those principles.


our minds operate with concepts that have been shattered by developments in physics and astronomy. if anything, the last 100 years have shown that our minds are utterly ill-equipped to make sense of the world around us.

How wrong can you be in two "sentences"?


and yet, we insist in using that insufficient tool. in fact, many even consider to not use that flawed tool as "un-scientific".

Which is better - using a weak torch or stumbling around in complete darkness?


it is like trying to understand a delicate swiss watch with only a sledgehammer as a tool.

Belongs here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/90744-The-poor-analogies-thread?). Science is more like the above-mentioned torch. Nobody pretends it illuminates everything, but we are much better off with it than trying to guess what's in the darkness.

SIL, the sheer jaw-dropping wrongness of your words serve as a reminder of how valuable science is, and how admirable it is that we don't treat it like a religion. I thank you.

[Disinfo Agent]

Welcome to the forum, ScienceIsReligion.


oh my oh my!
so much non-sense going on here!

1. science is nothing but religion. science is a bunch of beliefs. at the basis of what is commonly called "science" are a series (quite a lot actually) of completely unquestioned beliefs. the belief in the concept of causality for example. the belief in an objective "reality", etc.
those are just that: beliefs. they are postulations. that just as a general introduction. a lot more can be said about it. but not now.

2. i have studied math and physics. i LOVE science, especially physics and astronomy and i am educated in the religion called science. my mind easily works with abstract concepts and algorithms. it is very entertaining.
but i have realized science to be what it is: nothing but another religion. the most popular these days - for sure - but at the end of the day it is nothing but a bunch of beliefs! chew on that for a day or two or more.Attacking science won't make astrology appear any less absurd.


3. on the debunker article regarding astrology:
your basic premise ("but they all operate under a very broad working assumption: there is some sort of force from the heavens that influences us here on Earth.") is completely wrong:
only people who don't fully understand astrology would word it that way.I'm afraid that looks like a textbook example of the "no-true-Scotsman" fallacy to me.

Lots of people believe (or speak as though they believe) that astrology means "there is some sort of force from the heavens that influences us here on Earth". The very language of astrology makes it apparent. It doesn't matter how much they may have failed to understand your own notion of what astrology should mean. The kind of astrology that most real people in the real world believe in is the one worth discussing.

[Van Rijn]

i see clear statistically relevant evidence in my peers, which - rightfully - does not hold up in scientific court but it is good enough for me. it made me look which in turn opened my mind.


Okay, so you have personal beliefs. That's fine, but it seems you agree that it isn't science. If you had something that was stastically relevant in a controlled study, and could be independently verified, it could very well hold up in scientific court. That hasn't happened for astrology, though.



astrology operates with patterns, rather abstract patterns that are hard to capture with words. it requires an intuitive approach. the willingness for this approach is largely absent in contemporary science.


Many things in science can't be captured well with words (math is very important!), but "intuitive approach" in this context often refers to a subjective interpretation of results (for instance, agreeing with a too general horoscope). Intuition is fine in science, but at some point, you need to set the conditions for an experiment and follow through with it objectively. That's where astrology falls down: Nobody has shown by experiment that any astrological system holds up statistically, or shown a mechanism for an astrological system.

[ScienceIsReligion]

Nobody has shown by experiment that any astrological system holds up statistically, or shown a mechanism for an astrological system.

everybody here seems to repeat this like a mantra. do you know for sure? i don't want to repeat myself here. see my response to strange (#76)

have you ever had a close look at astrology? have you ever had a reading by an experienced and qualified astrologer?
or could it be that you simply discarded it from the get-go because it doesn't seem to fit with your beliefs and paradigms?

the mainstream scientific method is not outright wrong. it is, however, highly incomplete. why? because it is solely built on mind-based concepts. i thought it should be clear by now that the mind is a very blunt and ill-equipped tool to analyze and understand the complex world we find ourselves in. mind-based concepts seem to work, but only up to a point.

it is like the difference between western and eastern medicine:
western medicine works but is has few concepts for the big picture. eastern medicine provides concepts for the bigger picture but lacks when it comes to the mechanical aspects of our systems. we ABSOLUTELY NEED both.
when i have a broken leg or have been in a serious car accident i'd certainly go to a western practitioner. if i had cancer or some other long-term and most likely psycho-somatic illness i'd certainly consult a practitioner of eastern medicine as well.

so far, mainstream science is like western medicine. it is incomplete and lacks concepts to look at the bigger picture, because it almost exclusively mind-based. the mind is helpful up to a point but there is MUCH more to this universe than can be understood with the mind!
we need to seriously extend and refine our scientific tools.
isn't that clear to anybody who looks at the development of science in the last 100 or so years?

[Gillianren]

everybody here seems to repeat this like a mantra. do you know for sure? i don't want to repeat myself here. see my response to strange (#76)

Actually, we do. For one thing, we did a test here several years back, and the results came out less than what probability would indicate as far as accuracy.


have you ever had a close look at astrology? have you ever had a reading by an experienced and qualified astrologer?

Yes and yes.


or could it be that you simply discarded it from the get-go because it doesn't seem to fit with your beliefs and paradigms?

I discarded it because it doesn't work.


the mainstream scientific method is not outright wrong. it is, however, highly incomplete. why? because it is solely built on mind-based concepts. i thought it should be clear by now that the mind is a very blunt and ill-equipped tool to analyze and understand the complex world we find ourselves in. mind-based concepts seem to work, but only up to a point.

Okay; what tool do you want to use to show that astrology works?


it is like the difference between western and eastern medicine:
western medicine works but is has few concepts for the big picture. eastern medicine provides concepts for the bigger picture but lacks when it comes to the mechanical aspects of our systems. we ABSOLUTELY NEED both.
when i have a broken leg or have been in a serious car accident i'd certainly go to a western practitioner. if i had cancer or some other long-term and most likely psycho-somatic illness i'd certainly consult a practitioner of eastern medicine as well.

Wait. Are you calling cancer psychosomatic? If so, you really need to reconsider what's religion, here. There's a reason people in the "East" are turning to "Western" medicine--it works.


so far, mainstream science is like western medicine. it is incomplete and lacks concepts to look at the bigger picture, because it almost exclusively mind-based. the mind is helpful up to a point but there is MUCH more to this universe than can be understood with the mind!
we need to seriously extend and refine our scientific tools.
isn't that clear to anybody who looks at the development of science in the last 100 or so years?

It's clear that Western medicine is incomplete, yes. I have several chronic conditions, none of which can be cured. The state of medicine is getting better, and it's been doing so for quite some time. However, the fact that it does keep improving makes it better than systems which don't and merely stay in error.

[Van Rijn]

everybody here seems to repeat this like a mantra. do you know for sure?


Do you have an example of a scientific study supporting astrology that stood up to scrutiny?

The BA's page on astrology (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html) points to an article that discusses scientific research on astrology and negative results. The article is here (note: pdf file).

http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

From the article:

Very few empirical studies existed before 1950. However, by 1975 there were more than one hundred studies in astrology journals and psychology journals, most of them unknown [...]Today the number of empirical studies exceeds five hundred. [...] Unfortunately, this revolution in understanding has had little effect on astrological practice, simply because astrologers rely on experience, or what psychologists call 'personal validation'.

and

Many tests of astrologers have been made since the 1950s but only recently has a coherent review been possible. A large-scale test of persons born less than five minutes apart found no hint of the similarities predicted by astrology. Meta-analysis of more than forty controlled studies suggests that astrologers are unable to perform significantly better than chance even on the more basic tasks such as predicting extraversion.



have you ever had a close look at astrology?

Yes.



have you ever had a reading by an experienced and qualified astrologer?

I have had a reading by an astrologer that claimed to be experienced. "Qualified" assumes there are useful qualifications in this field, which has not been established. But I have to wonder why you would ask. This is not relevant to the issue of objectively testing astrology. Rather, it appears to be getting right into the issue of "personal validation" mentioned in the linked paper.


or could it be that you simply discarded it from the get-go because it doesn't seem to fit with your beliefs and paradigms?


No, but it does sound to me like you aren't particularly interested in the problems with your beliefs.

[HenrikOlsen]

have you ever had a reading by an experienced and qualified astrologer?
Can you please describe how, apart from the possible sincerity of the reader, such a reading differs from cold reading?

[Strange]

these experiences by themselves are not scientific proof but they are (or can be) nevertheless relevant to get you started in a certain direction of investigation - provided you are open to it that is.

Indeed. And so...


i don't know if there are studies performed by "mainstream science" regarding this question. do you? are you aware of all studies ever performed on this subject? does a member of "mainstream science" even dare to touch that subject or is the "scientific method" - which, one would hope, includes at least to take a look - sacrificed at the altar of personal reputation?

You don't know of any studies and so you assume there haven't been any and then you further assume that the reason is that people are afraid of The Truth. That is truly pathetic. There have been studies because, of course, some people would love to find evidence for things like this. And some people would love to prove there is none.

Of course, I am not aware of every study ever done. However, I think we would all be aware of any study that had shown a definite correlation between any form of astrologism and reality.


i am sure there are many areas in my life where i am closed-minded and stubborn etc. when it comes to finding the truth, however, i am not. i am passionate about it! wherever it takes me.

Good. Then you will just have to accept the fact that, as far as we can tell, astrologism, fortune telling, psychic powers, ghosts and Father Christmas are all equally bogus. (Sorry about the last one :))

BTW You still haven't said which form of astrologism you think has validity and whether that means the others are bogus, or somehow they are all equally valid...

[SolusLupus]

Actually, we do. For one thing, we did a test here several years back, and the results came out less than what probability would indicate as far as accuracy.

Relevant youtube video: James Randi on Astrology (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dp2Zqk8vHw).

[SolusLupus]

that response is just dumb and polemic and not worthy of any response. you know that, right?

So "It works, and here's the evidence" isn't allowed in your belief system?

e=mc^2 -- according to you, it's just a religious belief, and might as well not exist. So does the existence and power of gravity. Yet scientists (or indeed, the average layman with the right amount of knowledge) can use these "religious beliefs" to make incredibly accurate predictions.

If there's someone that seems to make polemic arguments, it seems to be yourself.

[gzhpcu]

have you ever had a close look at astrology? have you ever had a reading by an experienced and qualified astrologer?

I, for one did take a close look. I bet I did more so than you did. I have read close to 60 books on astrology, studied it very deeply. Have read the works of Robert Hand, Steve Arroyo, Liz Greene, to name just a few and many others.
I did so 15 years ago, having been challenged to do so by a colleague. I certainly found it very interesting, and, initially, was intrigued with the symbology and interpreation, especially of the Jungian school of psychologists writing on the subject.
If you delve deeply into birth horoscopes, you will find an enormous amount of parameters to deal with, planets in signs, planets in houses, aspects between planets, voids in houses, etc.
I came to the conclusion that with such a huge amount of parameters to deal with, it came down to a shotgun blast approach: some of the pellets hit the target, and one tends to disregard those pellets which don't.
We conducted a test here on BAUT, Grey and I. Look here:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/19599-Scientific-Test-of-Astrology?highlight=astrology

[Jeff Root]

gzhpcu,

A couple of years ago I asked for a source of info about where astrologers
get the required correlations between the positions of celestial objects and
mundane behavior. Unless they *all* just make it up on the fly, they need
to use some kind of reference which tells them "ABC in the sky means XYZ
on Earth." Yet I have never heard of such a reference, despite frequently
hearing about references for positions of celestial objects. One person
responded with a source or two, but I didn't get around to looking them
up, and the person later deleted his posts.

It is as if it never occurred to anyone -- including astrologers -- that the
astrologers need to know anything except the positions of the planets and
the time and location of a person's birth in order to make a prediction.
Discovering, confirming, recording, and publishing correlations between
sky configurations and human behavior should be an industry as big and
active as doing readings. But I've never seen any hint that it exists.

Could you either explain how it is done or recommend a source?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[gzhpcu]

Jeff,
I concentrated primarily on birth horoscopes. And then, only the modern, post Jung astrologers. What I gathered from what I read, is that departing from the mixture of the symbols traditionally used by astrologers (for example: mars - aggression , action, jupiter: optimism, expansion, etc.), the authors expanded based on what they considered to have observed in their personal consultations.
Other than the controversial "Mars test" conducted in France by Gauquelin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Gauquelin), am not aware any systematic investigations.

Just to make sure I am not misunderstood: I studied astrology in depth and am not convinced at all. The test we made in BAUT opened my eyes.

[Jeff Root]

I concentrated primarily on birth horoscopes. And then, only the
modern, post Jung astrologers. What I gathered from what I read,
is that departing from the mixture of the symbols traditionally
used by astrologers (for example: mars - aggression , action,
jupiter: optimism, expansion, etc.), ...
As a starting point, I'd like to know what references astrologers
use for those "traditional symbols".

Is "symbol" really the term used? It seems semantically wrong,
but since you mention Jung, inevitably symbols must be involved.
Whether needed or not. I don't know what term I would choose,
but it certainly wouldn't be "symbol". "Connection", "relation",
or "characteristic" would be better.



... the authors expanded based on what they considered to have
observed in their personal consultations.
So, how could their first few thousand consultations have any
value at all? Do they sit in on other astrologers' consultations
to learn the craft? Do they have to remember all the relations?
Or do they keep records? Do they share their records with one
another, or does each astrologer have no idea what the other
astrologers consider the relations to be?



Other than the controversial "Mars test" conducted in France by
Gauquelin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Gauquelin),
am not aware any systematic investigations.
Unless they're especially interesting, I'm not interested in tests
or investigations. I just want to know where astrologers get the
data they use. That seems like an important bit of information
to have. One of the "things everyone should know".

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[gzhpcu]

One of the foremost astrologers, Robert Hand, uses the term "symbols"..
http://www.amazon.com/Horoscope-Symbols-Robert-Hand/dp/0914918168

The traditional astrological classifications are thousands of years old. Modern astrologers like Liz Greene state: "the connections between certain of Jung's models of the psyche and certain astrological classifications which I made when writing this book have been vindicated to me many times over in the last decade"...Relating foreward, page xii.

So there does not seem to be any methodical procedure, just astroloigers exchanging information and experiences.

[HenrikOlsen]

I may be wrong here, but I think Jeff is really asking for the names of a couple of books that tell about these symbols and would be used by a starting astrologer to learn the basics.

Otherwise the real answer to the question "where do they get the connections from?" would be "they made them up or read about them from other people who made them up".

[gzhpcu]

I may be wrong here, but I think Jeff is really asking for the names of a couple of books that tell about these symbols and would be used by a starting astrologer to learn the basics.

Otherwise the real answer to the question "where do they get the connections from?" would be "they made them up or read about them from other people who made them up".
If that is the question, then a book like the Robert Hand book I cited would be a starting point. Or an older book (for example by Rudyhar). There are many books defining the basic symbols. As far as I can tell, afterwards they extrapolate.

[Jeff Root]

Yes. I want to know: 1) What references do astrologers use to
interpret the significance of celestial alignments, and 2) How was
the information in those references generated?

As a wild guess, perhaps the primary income of astrologers is
tuition from students trying to learn how to do readings. So the
only way to learn astrology is to pay to be taught by an astrologer.
No references wanted.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[gzhpcu]

From what I have seen, someone who wants to become an astrologer, just starts reading up and interpreting charts. They search on the internet for astrologers giving courses. There are practically no diplomas given for the subject.

[HenrikOlsen]

Yes. I want to know: 1) What references do astrologers use to
interpret the significance of celestial alignments,
Books by other astrologers, plus what they themselves make up

and 2) How was the information in those references generated?
It was gleaned from books by other astrologers, plus what the authors themselves make up.

[gzhpcu]

This is how Robert Hand became an astrologer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hand

Hand began studying astrology in 1960 at the age of 17. His father, Wilfred Hand, taught him the basics of casting astrological charts and claimed to be a specialist in Heliocentric astrology and Cosmobiology; his father also claimed to have used astrological cycles for use in forecasting the financial and stock markets. In 1972 Rob began practicing astrology as a full-time profession.
They just start doing it...

[Strange]

his father also claimed to have used astrological cycles for use in forecasting the financial and stock markets

So, presumably he was fantastically wealthy?

[Gillianren]

Shoot, you can get software which will run a chart for you and tell you what it all means, and you've been able to for twenty years or more. You can probably go into any New Age bookstore/Pagan supply store (like a Christian store, but more wands and Tarot cards) and get books about astrology. You can go to your local library--I don't remember the call number, but they're pretty close to the beginning.

[HenrikOlsen]

Dewey? 133.5

Suitably right next to black magic (133.4) :)

The 133 group is occultism and supernatural.

[Gillianren]

I was pretty sure it was somewhere in there. When you go into the Olympia library, it's right along the front, on the same row of shelves as trivia, library science, and computer science. There aren't a lot of books in any one category until you hit about the 300s.

[astromark]

With a malicious disregard for the sensitivity of any astrologer. I will confess to being a party to a deliberate deception.

That this deception was conducted four a number of months without ever being challenged or corrected. Is 'interesting'...

It was some twenty years ago...

I was involved in the publication of a newspaper. I worked in the compositors room of a major daily paper.

We quite deliberately altered the content of the astrological horoscopes and we kept doing it for more than six months.

With wreckless disregard and absolutely no responsibility... We did it for the fun of it.

We changed the whole things structure and imagined most of it. Whose birthday is it this week...Lets screw em...

The racing pages of the paper were the source of many of the poetic rants we had fun with... like...

'Saturn rising will feed your needs this week'... 'caution the setting of Mars as your love life will crumble'...

Not a single complaint. Not one. No astrologer ever came forward with a point... not one.

and I should note that Mars was in the early evening sky. Not with the Sun... did they not look ?

We actually only reverted back to the wire feed because we tired of the game... shame on me... :eh:

Jeff makes a good point... from where do the standards come. Who controls the rules. Are there any ?

If that offends you... :eh:sorry... not in the slightest.

[gzhpcu]

We quite deliberately altered the content of the astrological horoscopes and we kept doing it for more than six months.

With wreckless disregard and absolutely no responsibility... We did it for the fun of it.

We changed the whole things structure and imagined most of it. Whose birthday is it this week...Lets screw em...

The racing pages of the paper were the source of many of the poetic rants we had fun with... like...

'Saturn rising will feed your needs this week'... 'caution the setting of Mars as your love life will crumble'...

Not a single complaint. Not one. No astrologer ever came forward with a point... not one.



I suppose because there is a certain code of honor between fellow astrologers...;)

[astromark]

:( OMG they think I'm one.... how depressing :eh:Lol...

[Jeff Root]

That's beautiful, Mark.

Has enough time gone by yet that you'd be willing to tell the world (us)
what newspaper it was, and during what period your mischief was done?
How many people were involved? Who started it?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Gillianren]

My school newspaper ran "Mayan Cosmology" in place of a Sumerian-based horoscope. You can't prove by me they didn't make that up, either; it was the thing I was least fussy about proofreading, because I hadn't found evidence anyone else cared about it any more than I did. It wasn't even pithy and entertaining.

[pzkpfw]

With a malicious disregard for the sensitivity of any astrologer. I will confess to being a party to a deliberate deception.

...

I had a project manager once who'd worked in the U.K. for a few years - before she'd got into I.T. herself. One of her jobs was for a fairly large newspaper (I forget the name, but remember that it was one of the "big ones") - doing the horoscopes. Nope, she was not an astrologer or anything, her job was to "make stuff up" the way you did!

---

We had a case in N.Z a few years back... a lady rang one of those $2.99 per minute horoscope telephone lines. Then her Mother (different "star sign") did the same - and got the same message.

Turned out the same pre-recorded "predictions" were read out - regardless of which "star sign" you choose when you rang the number.

Amazingly the operators of the "service" apologised for the "oversight"*; and continued in "business".

(* they didn't predict this issue would arise?!)

[astromark]

:dance: I am not alone. Now I feel vindicated :eh:... It was so easy Jeff... NZ capitals, The Dominion. 1978.

From just this last few postings... This astrology thing has some credibility issues... and is Garbage as well.

[astromark]

Is this good science ?

That the position of the sun in relation to the zodiacal sign it is in... at the date of your berth could in any way

shape or govern what personality or type of person you become...?

or

What type of temperaments you were exposed to in the last month of pregnancy and the next five years.... Case dismissed.

[Jeff Root]

That could easily be the way the Universe works. It isn't immediately
obvious that it isn't how the Universe works.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[ToSeek]

In my more credulous younger days, I read a fair amount about astrology, and pretty much all the astrologers I read were highly contemptuous of newspaper astrology columns. On the other hand, if they were that upset, you'd think they'd do more about it - I mean, if there were a regular faux-science column that showed up in the paper every day, there'd be outrage from every professional society in the country.

[HenrikOlsen]

Is this good science ?
That the position of the sun in relation to the zodiacal sign it is in... at the date of your berth could in any way
shape or govern what personality or type of person you become...?
or
What type of temperaments you were exposed to in the last month of pregnancy and the next five years.... Case dismissed.
I wouldn't find it overly surprising to find a correlation between aspects of personality and time of year of birth, when adjusted for latitude of living, in that light is known to affect mood and to some extent brain chemistry and, for latitudes farther from the equator, the difference in light experienced at different phases of early development can be vast.

This effect would be expected to be more expressed the farther from the equator one grew up in the formative years and follow seasons rather that dates, so offset by half a year for the southern hemisphere.

I haven't seen any horoscopes or heard of any astronomers who try to use such a measure for anything, or more precicely I've heard of none who offset the "meaning" of the sun sign by half a year for southern hemisphere people.

[pzkpfw]

In my more credulous younger days, I read a fair amount about astrology, and pretty much all the astrologers I read were highly contemptuous of newspaper astrology columns. On the other hand, if they were that upset, you'd think they'd do more about it - I mean, if there were a regular faux-science column that showed up in the paper every day, there'd be outrage from every professional society in the country.

The problem for the astrologers is that their outrage against the newspaper horoscopes would have have to be backed up by proof.

I can imagine a group of "real" astrologers suing a newspaper astrologer - and the judge asks "so, now prove that your astrology is 'real'..."!

[gzhpcu]

I wouldn't find it overly surprising to find a correlation between aspects of personality and time of year of birth, when adjusted for latitude of living, in that light is known to affect mood and to some extent brain chemistry and, for latitudes farther from the equator, the difference in light experienced at different phases of early development can be vast.

This effect would be expected to be more expressed the farther from the equator one grew up in the formative years and follow seasons rather that dates, so offset by half a year for the southern hemisphere.

I haven't seen any horoscopes or heard of any astronomers who try to use such a measure for anything, or more precicely I've heard of none who offset the "meaning" of the sun sign by half a year for southern hemisphere people.
Looks like you found a market niche... You can start your own astrology school...;)

[HenrikOlsen]

Likely not really "mystic" enough to be much appealing, and probably less of an influence than something like how many siblings you have and the age and gender combinations amongst the siblings.
Something which I don't see Astrologers use either.

[astromark]

Taking it all with a pinch ( bucket ) of salt...

'Tell me how does the sunshine hours and solar strength change from a equatorial dwelling Malaysian tribesman

compare with a Nanuit of northern Canada ? ( Natives )

In regard to the manor of ones temperament... and or intelligence...

How would we know ? How would we dare to make assumptions of intellect...

I can imagine many other attributes effects like warmth., affection, nurturing, and diversity of food available... Parenting skills...

It is time that all things astrology related were put into the skip bin and eliminated from our historic records.. Its an embarrassment.

Looking at these contributions... there is little regard and support for it... Madmen and lunatics aside...:eh:mark of NZ

[Swift]

Weird Al's take on all of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26IOww0gO1w)

:D

[Gillianren]

Actually, my friends find that one a little alarming. I'm a Sagittarius, you see.

[astromark]

Thank you swift... I knew I could count on you to provide me with a link of some relevance... So thats it then... DOOMED... :(