Astrology = Garbage

[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 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 ?. ____________________________ ______________________

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.' _________________

[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. 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 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.

[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....ight=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