Astrology. A basis in truth...

[naphathara]

... Or not?

Do you believe that astrology has a bearing on your life, or are you in complete control of everything that happens to you?

I'd like to know what you think.

[eagle]

I do believe everything is connected and have seen strange connections seemingly too ironic to be just coincidence. But I'm not gonna decide how I live according to astrology anymore then I want to live my life according to a tarot card reader or phycic. I prefer to kick myself in the ass rather then look for the stars to kick me :twisted:

[Dr_Sassy]

yah yah.. it says that "this thursday's eclipsed new moon falls in the zone of love and relating, at the very least beginning a fresh year-long cycle, which may mean the approach of a wedding or engagement, but at best signalling the arrival of a new partner in your life."

so I will see

[Mazzy]

...

[zeusbheld]

there may, or may not, be some truth to astrology. odds are very good that we'll never know;nobody's figured out how to verify the claims of this discipline scientifically. it may or may not have some predictive power; it may or may not be a shell game.

either way, it *can* be useful IMO. let's say i have a star chart done. it tells me what days i can expect what sort of thing, etc. even if it's complete bunk, it can still be useful : an arbitrary plan is usually better than no plan, and my reaction to the content of the predictions might tell me things about myself.

[Loburt]

there may, or may not, be some truth to astrology. odds are very good that we'll never know;nobody's figured out how to verify the claims of this discipline scientifically. it may or may not have some predictive power; it may or may not be a shell game.

For someone who has pointed out in other threads that they read scientific journals, I'm really surprised at this statement from you.

[CiaranM]

there may, or may not, be some truth to astrology. odds are very good that we'll never know;nobody's figured out how to verify the claims of this discipline scientifically. it may or may not have some predictive power; it may or may not be a shell game.

For someone who has pointed out in other threads that they read scientific journals, I'm really surprised at this statement from you.

me too .... i reckon it's all a load of bollocks !!!!

[Dave40]

there may, or may not, be some truth to astrology. odds are very good that we'll never know;nobody's figured out how to verify the claims of this discipline scientifically. it may or may not have some predictive power; it may or may not be a shell game.

For someone who has pointed out in other threads that they read scientific journals, I'm really surprised at this statement from you.

me too .... i reckon it's all a load of bollocks !!!!

I agree!!!

[Dr_Sassy]

ËÃô٠----> psychiatrist for losers ! ----> Ex PM believes in Astrology as well

Ouch.. I'm a big fat loser

[PJack]

yah yah.. it says that "this thursday's eclipsed new moon falls in the zone of love and relating, at the very least beginning a fresh year-long cycle, which may mean the approach of a wedding or engagement, but at best signalling the arrival of a new partner in your life."

so I will see

It is me, Sassy. P' Jack.

You just wait and see, girl.

[PJack]

there may, or may not, be some truth to astrology. odds are very good that we'll never know;nobody's figured out how to verify the claims of this discipline scientifically. it may or may not have some predictive power; it may or may not be a shell game.

For someone who has pointed out in other threads that they read scientific journals, I'm really surprised at this statement from you.

me too .... i reckon it's all a load of bollocks !!!!

Yeah, really zeus. what the hell was that? a momentary lapse of reason?

[zeusbheld]

there may, or may not, be some truth to astrology. odds are very good that we'll never know;nobody's figured out how to verify the claims of this discipline scientifically. it may or may not have some predictive power; it may or may not be a shell game.

For someone who has pointed out in other threads that they read scientific journals, I'm really surprised at this statement from you.

as someone who has looked at scientific journals now and then, the first thing i notice is a pattern: the stuff that makes it into scientific journals is the stuff that is testable, claims that are falsifiable. the claims of astrology in terms of its impact on daily life, from what i've seen, are beyond that realm. how can you verify--or falsify--a given birth chart, when astrologers don't usefully agree on what it indicates.?

did i say "astrology was science"? DEFINITELY NOT. would i say "astrology could be science" NO, NOT FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN. what i'm saying is that the claims of astrology as it is commonly practiced, are not, from what i can tell, consistent enough or objective enough to be testable scientifically in a meaningful way.

if you can find, in any peer-reviewed scientific journal, a way of consistently, in principle,verifying or falsifying astrology's claims, do post it please. i haven't seen it. gimme a link until then, what would you expect me to say? that i know, one way or the other? to say it is proven to be bunk is mere dogma, and no less psuedoscientific bullshit than saying it's proven to be true, from anything *i* have seen. until astrology's claims are formulated physically, instead of metaphysically or subjectively, it's outside of science.

i'd say the following claim:

there might be some correlation between positions of celestial bodies and human behavior

might fall within the realm of science some day, if anyone cares enough to research it. but from what i've seen, here's a (grossly oversimplified) example of a pop-astrological claim:

the heavens are aligned just so.

you were born at such and such time.

therefore, you will have a good day on 3/3/2009.

is this a scientific argument? not from what i can see. firstly, it is possible to determine the alignments of the heavens at any given time. arguably it is possible to determine the exact moment of birth (although i wonder if that isn't a question of semantics). but then... HOW was it decided that this means "good day"? i may be missing something but seems to me that such values could only have been assigned either arbitrarily or intuitively. i've yet to see any argument as to why one value matches one celestial configuration. so already we're outside of science, by the time we get to the question of "what, exactly and objectively, is a "good day"?" i seriously doubt there's any rigorous way to define a good day. it's inherently subjective.

so to my eye, it may or may not be predictive, but i doubt there is, or ever will be, any way of knowing scientifically, regardless of how good we get at calculating celestial configurations.

believing in astrology per se most likely qualifies as pure superstition, especially as it is popularly practiced (trite, stagnant rules of thumb), but i don't see superstition as necessarily useless. life is messy and the vast majority of decisions cannot be made "scientifically." i don't follow astrology but i *do* sometimes make decisions by flipping a coin.

short version: is it possible i am who i am because of the positions of planets, stars and other space junk? yes, it's possible. is there any reason to believe that it is more likely than the opposite, that these matters are insignificant and irrelevant? nope. can i get a clear scientific answer on which to believe? i doubt it, at least presently.

[zeusbheld]

there may, or may not, be some truth to astrology. odds are very good that we'll never know;nobody's figured out how to verify the claims of this discipline scientifically. it may or may not have some predictive power; it may or may not be a shell game.

For someone who has pointed out in other threads that they read scientific journals, I'm really surprised at this statement from you.

me too .... i reckon it's all a load of bollocks !!!!

Yeah, really zeus. what the hell was that? a momentary lapse of reason?

bait.

[bigKus]

For me, I think it fun and kind of exciting when sit and listen to someone who have never met you tell the truth of your story in the past or tell about your partner's personalities correctly.

But, for the things in the future in my life, i think i know better than whoever on earth :wink:

[Geri]

Nice to read, (If I have time) especially when it predicts something good will happen to you...but I don't really believe in Astrology and Horoscopes....

I don't go to fortune tellers as well...but I don't mind if someone tells me to be "careful" about something/ someone etc...

[CiaranM]

ËÃô٠----> psychiatrist for losers ! ----> Ex PM believes in Astrology as well

Ouch.. I'm a big fat loser

come on . . . . u ain't that fat ! ! ! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

[PeeMarc]

There's a fabulous book called "A Fortune Teller Told Me" which is a true account of a journalist who travelled from Cambodia, Burma, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia seeking out the best fortune tellers in each town and city he visited. In the end he found that, while fortune telling is mostly great entertainment, it is total and utter bollocks.

I also think the same about astrology. Great parlour game and idle entertainment, but little else.

A lot of (even very intelligent) people have problems dealing with Truth or Facts or Common Sense, prefering to swim around in the shifting mess of opinions or rituals or 'magical' powers.

Perhaps its the case that Facts or Truth or Common Sense are just too boring. Maybe believing in or using Astrology (or whatever mumbo jumbo) is just more fun and entertaining for people.

[PJack]

there may, or may not, be some truth to astrology. odds are very good that we'll never know;nobody's figured out how to verify the claims of this discipline scientifically. it may or may not have some predictive power; it may or may not be a shell game.

For someone who has pointed out in other threads that they read scientific journals, I'm really surprised at this statement from you.

as someone who has looked at scientific journals now and then, the first thing i notice is a pattern: the stuff that makes it into scientific journals is the stuff that is testable, claims that are falsifiable. the claims of astrology in terms of its impact on daily life, from what i've seen, are beyond that realm. how can you verify--or falsify--a given birth chart, when astrologers don't usefully agree on what it indicates.?

did i say "astrology was science"? DEFINITELY NOT. would i say "astrology could be science" NO, NOT FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN. what i'm saying is that the claims of astrology as it is commonly practiced, are not, from what i can tell, consistent enough or objective enough to be testable scientifically in a meaningful way.

if you can find, in any peer-reviewed scientific journal, a way of consistently, in principle,verifying or falsifying astrology's claims, do post it please. i haven't seen it. gimme a link until then, what would you expect me to say? that i know, one way or the other? to say it is proven to be bunk is mere dogma, and no less psuedoscientific bullshit than saying it's proven to be true, from anything *i* have seen. until astrology's claims are formulated physically, instead of metaphysically or subjectively, it's outside of science.

i'd say the following claim:

there might be some correlation between positions of celestial bodies and human behavior

might fall within the realm of science some day, if anyone cares enough to research it. but from what i've seen, here's a (grossly oversimplified) example of a pop-astrological claim:

the heavens are aligned just so.

you were born at such and such time.

therefore, you will have a good day on 3/3/2009.

is this a scientific argument? not from what i can see. firstly, it is possible to determine the alignments of the heavens at any given time. arguably it is possible to determine the exact moment of birth (although i wonder if that isn't a question of semantics). but then... HOW was it decided that this means "good day"? i may be missing something but seems to me that such values could only have been assigned either arbitrarily or intuitively. i've yet to see any argument as to why one value matches one celestial configuration. so already we're outside of science, by the time we get to the question of "what, exactly and objectively, is a "good day"?" i seriously doubt there's any rigorous way to define a good day. it's inherently subjective.

so to my eye, it may or may not be predictive, but i doubt there is, or ever will be, any way of knowing scientifically, regardless of how good we get at calculating celestial configurations.

believing in astrology per se most likely qualifies as pure superstition, especially as it is popularly practiced (trite, stagnant rules of thumb), but i don't see superstition as necessarily useless. life is messy and the vast majority of decisions cannot be made "scientifically." i don't follow astrology but i *do* sometimes make decisions by flipping a coin.

short version: is it possible i am who i am because of the positions of planets, stars and other space junk? yes, it's possible. is there any reason to believe that it is more likely than the opposite, that these matters are insignificant and irrelevant? nope. can i get a clear scientific answer on which to believe? i doubt it, at least presently.

I believe you are reaching to describe how to test a null hypothesis.

[AloneAgain]

http://www.suzannewhite.com/newastrology/index.shtml

[zeusbheld]

I believe you are reaching to describe how to test a null hypothesis.

maybe i'm missing something but doesn't the describing how to test something with a null hypothesis beg the question of whether anything can be measured meaningfully? my point was, i have no reason to believe astrological predictions CAN be measured meaningfully. unless i'm missing something, "null hypothesis" implies that i could, given the right test, get a clear picture of whether to believe an astrological prediction or not. i said specifically that i doubt that we can.

as far as i can see the best reason for assuming astrology to be bullshit is Occam's razor. we can't know even when we think a prediction was effective, if it really was. so believing in astrology is legs on a snake.

what i'm fishing for, really, is for someone to come up with a better reason for doubting astrology than a) Occam's razor or "common sense." i may be missing something essential, but appeal to common sense seems to me, little more than dogma. reason-friendly dogma, but dogma nonetheless.

[AloneAgain]

http://www.suzannewhite.com/newastrology/index.shtml

Couldn't be any further off.

Consider the number of people on this planet and how many people this overview applies to sure there is room for some inaccuracies but if you dared to have Suzanne do your personal analysis I guarantee you would be suitably impressed of how uncannily acurate it was.

I lived with an astute astrologer in London 30+ years ago who introduced me to the facinating world of astrology and like many of you on this post i was at first highly skeptical as i am with many other so called superstions but the deciding factor which caught my attention was the fact that there are twelve signs in the zodiac which are divided into four groups Air, Water, Fire, Earth and a natural attraction exists between people in the same group.

now aware of this I turned to my immediate family and what did I discover:

Mother-Cancer/Father-Pisces both water signs

Eldest sister-Aquarius/Brother in-law-Libran both air signs

Middle sister-Libra/two Brother in-laws-both Libran both air signs again

Older brother-Pisces/Married three times all Pisces all water signs

Myself-Pisces/First wife at that time Pisces

and none of my family believed in astrology by the way and since that time I have witnessed far too many consistent patterns to confirm the undenialable relevance of an exacting astrology [not a paragraph in a local daily which applies to half a billion people] and it's not my wish or intention to try and convince anybody else but thought i might just add this so some of you might take a look around at the people in your lives and see just how often this phenomena keeps reoccuring.

[PeeMarc]

I believe you are reaching to describe how to test a null hypothesis.

maybe i'm missing something but doesn't the describing how to test something with a null hypothesis beg the question of whether anything can be measured meaningfully? my point was, i have no reason to believe astrological predictions CAN be measured meaningfully. unless i'm missing something, "null hypothesis" implies that i could, given the right test, get a clear picture of whether to believe an astrological prediction or not. i said specifically that i doubt that we can.

as far as i can see the best reason for assuming astrology to be bullshit is Occam's razor. we can't know even when we think a prediction was effective, if it really was. so believing in astrology is legs on a snake.

what i'm fishing for, really, is for someone to come up with a better reason for doubting astrology than a) Occam's razor or "common sense." i may be missing something essential, but appeal to common sense seems to me, little more than dogma. reason-friendly dogma, but dogma nonetheless.

Zues I think your description of common sense as "dogma" is perhaps too strong. But be that as it may, it might be better to look at it in much the same way as the weather predictions. They gather all the info, look at similar past secenarios, dial in all the factors and influences, then they predict "with a certain amount of reasonable odds" that the weather will be this or that.

But maybe it wont.

Even in quantum physics, many measurements and predictions cannot be made definately and only "the best possible odds or likellyhood" can be used as a basis. There is often going to be the 'random factor' to f*ck everything up. Maybe.

There is some degree doubt in just about every science. But the trick is to find ways to lower the odds to such a degree that it becomes almost a complete surety. Almost.

Predicting the future, using astrology or any other such system, is at best (up until now anyway) a judgement call. Not a very logical one mind you.

Common sense is much the same. I.e. gather info, experiences and advice and then make a judgement call. It's still a gamble. But at least its a more logical gamble, than astrology, when trying to predict outcome.

[zeusbheld]

http://www.suzannewhite.com/newastrology/index.shtml

Couldn't be any further off.

Consider the number of people on this planet and how many people this overview applies to sure there is room for some inaccuracies but if you dared to have Suzanne do your personal analysis I guarantee you would be suitably impressed of how uncannily acurate it was.

I lived with an astute astrologer in London 30+ years ago who introduced me to the facinating world of astrology and like many of you on this post i was at first highly skeptical as i am with many other so called superstions but the deciding factor which caught my attention was the fact that there are twelve signs in the zodiac which are divided into four groups Air, Water, Fire, Earth and a natural attraction exists between people in the same group.

now aware of this I turned to my immediate family and what did I discover:

Mother-Cancer/Father-Pisces both water signs

Eldest sister-Aquarius/Brother in-law-Libran both air signs

Middle sister-Libra/two Brother in-laws-both Libran both air signs again

Older brother-Pisces/Married three times all Pisces all water signs

Myself-Pisces/First wife at that time Pisces

and none of my family believed in astrology by the way and since that time I have witnessed far too many consistent patterns to confirm the undenialable relevance of an exacting astrology [not a paragraph in a local daily which applies to half a billion people] and it's not my wish or intention to try and convince anybody else but thought i might just add this so some of you might take a look around at the people in your lives and see just how often this phenomena keeps reoccuring.

Forer effect.

[PJack]

I believe you are reaching to describe how to test a null hypothesis.

maybe i'm missing something but doesn't the describing how to test something with a null hypothesis beg the question of whether anything can be measured meaningfully? my point was, i have no reason to believe astrological predictions CAN be measured meaningfully. unless i'm missing something, "null hypothesis" implies that i could, given the right test, get a clear picture of whether to believe an astrological prediction or not. i said specifically that i doubt that we can.

as far as i can see the best reason for assuming astrology to be bullshit is Occam's razor. we can't know even when we think a prediction was effective, if it really was. so believing in astrology is legs on a snake.

what i'm fishing for, really, is for someone to come up with a better reason for doubting astrology than a) Occam's razor or "common sense." i may be missing something essential, but appeal to common sense seems to me, little more than dogma. reason-friendly dogma, but dogma nonetheless.

yeah. I meant that in statistics one does a test that is designed to refute the null hypothesis, and therefore get to accept the hypothesis. Meaning: Astrology has no basis in fact (hypothesis). Astrology has a basis in fact (null hypothesis). And it was kind of a joke, too I guess.

Dogma? Interesting choice of words. In religions dogma does not have a negative connotation (pejorative), but to those outside the religion it usually does have one.

I guess if we could put all the people born at the same second in time together for a few personality tests it might lead to some conclusion that might dis-prove / prove something.

I do not believe in astrology but I do entertain myself with visits to these people/places from time to time. because the gf wants to go not because I really believe this stuff.

[zeusbheld]

Zues I think your description of common sense as "dogma" is perhaps too strong.

wasn't intending to imply anything negative by that, just beliefs accepted unquestioningly.

But be that as it may, it might be better to look at it in much the same way as the weather predictions. They gather all the info, look at similar past secenarios, dial in all the factors and influences, then they predict "with a certain amount of reasonable odds" that the weather will be this or that.

But maybe it wont.

but with the weather, we not only can, to a degree predict it in the near term, we can predict how accurately we'll be able to predict it, and we know why we can't predict it when we look too far in the future.

and we know exactly what we're trying to predict. temperature, precipitation, barometric pressure, relative humidity, etc. they're highly measurable.

Even in quantum physics, many measurements and predictions cannot be made definately and only "the best possible odds or likellyhood" can be used as a basis. There is often going to be the 'random factor' to f*ck everything up. Maybe.

There is some degree doubt in just about every science.

(emphasis mine)

ABSOLUTELY. scientific 'truths' are essentially provisional.

But the trick is to find ways to lower the odds to such a degree that it becomes almost a complete surety. Almost.

yep. or at least, like the weather, we can predict the point at which we can no longer predict it...

Predicting the future, using astrology or any other such system, is at best (up until now anyway) a judgement call. Not a very logical one mind you.

it's essentially subjective, as far as i can tell. and thus outside the realm of science. i can see where it works for some people, but more the way reading a novel can work for some people to help them sort their lives.

Common sense is much the same. I.e. gather info, experiences and advice and then make a judgement call. It's still a gamble. But at least its a more logical gamble, than astrology, when trying to predict outcome.

common sense is dogma in the sense of a set of rules of thumb that your'e so confident in, you dont' have to check. it's a set of assumptions that are accepted, unquestioningly as true. for most common situations, it works.

i can totally sympathize with relying on common sense to decide that astrology is not useful for you (especially since i've decided the same thing), but i don't feel like common sense can tell me whether there's any truth to it.