Astrology. A basis in truth...

[PeeMarc]

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.

If you see common sense in this way, then I suggest thats very sensible. For me, I try to use common sense as a tool to facilitate a decision. I dont see common sense as some unquestioned dogma which I "dont need to check". I may often check the common opinion or not even accept it. I may also use my intuition as well. Whatever gets me to the best and most likely prediction of what may (or may not) happen.

[PeeMarc]

...Further, using common sense to decide if astrology is true of not is a complete falacy and would be useless. It would be the same as using common sense to discover if God is real. It just wont. In fact, it would probably lead you to madness, rather than result.

Astrology, as we know it today, relies heavily on assumption and faith, as does religion. Therefore, to believe in it actually requires one to put aside all common sense because facts and evidence are not mostly available (or ignored).

Many astrologers point to data such as the amount of happenings which have been predicted accurately, or the amount of people who actually swear by it. This is total bollocks too and is just smoke screen for the non-thinkers.

Its similar logic which says that if you flip a coin a thousand times and it comes up heads every time, the odds are very likely it will come up heads the next time.

Of course, simple common sense would tell you that the odds are still 50/50 no matter what the past outcomes have been

[zeusbheld]

...Further, using common sense to decide if astrology is true of not is a complete falacy and would be useless. It would be the same as using common sense to discover if God is real. It just wont. In fact, it would probably lead you to madness, rather than result.

Astrology, as we know it today, relies heavily on assumption and faith, as does religion. Therefore, to believe in it actually requires one to put aside all common sense because facts and evidence are not mostly available (or ignored).

that was my point, or a lot like it anyway.

Many astrologers point to data such as the amount of happenings which have been predicted accurately, or the amount of people who actually swear by it. This is total bollocks too and is just smoke screen for the non-thinkers.

it's a sales pitch and doesn't have anything to do with any truth or untruth except the verifiable increase in astrologers' bank accounts.

[eagle]

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!!!

now now guys he has obviously been born again as a star gazer.

[PeeMarc]

Precisely.

But.... to go back to the original question: "Astrology... based on truth or not?"

Truth is a relative term, it can be proven wrong sometime in the future or even instantly. Therefore to believe in truth requires more faith than actual facts.

So I believe the answer to that question is likely to be "yes"

But.... if the question was "Astrology... based on FACT or not?", then I would say that the answer is very likely "No", since facts require common sense and logic, more than faith.

[CiaranM]

i still think it's all a load of bollocks !!

[farang_subson]

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.

You're weirding me out, Zeus. Did somebody steal your login? Do you have relatives/friends/ lovers who are into this claptrap? What's going on?

The studies have been done, though I won't bother to dig up links. It's simple enough to test...you have folks fill out personality surveys, and use statistics to see if the results are in accord with a preset "astrological" criteria. Surprise, surprise, nothing interesting ever emerges.

Good podcast: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/

Another suggestion: http://www.badastronomy.com/

[zeusbheld]

Precisely.

But.... to go back to the original question: "Astrology... based on truth or not?"

Truth is a relative term, it can be proven wrong sometime in the future or even instantly. Therefore to believe in truth requires more faith than actual facts.

truth in a scientific sense is provisional. while there is plenty of stuff unlikely to be proven untrue, process-wise it has to be open to revision, or to being absorbed as a subset of a larger theory. this happens all the time.

and stuff that isn't testable is outside of science (at least for now).

So I believe the answer to that question is likely to be "yes"

depends on how one defines truth. the beauty of scientific truth is that we have a set of approaches to defining provisional truths that is definable in a way that can be shared.

i do believe there is such a thing as subjective truth--for example, if you meditate, something does happen in your mind, you have a particular kind of experience a "mystical experience". by "mystical" i don't mean that there's anything magical or occult involved, just that minds are capable of having experiences whose reality or importance is not apparent to the senses or intelligence. i don't believe, however, that these experiences have any explanatory power beyond the inside of our own mind. and while i believe meditation can be taught, i believe that any "mystical truths" we arrive at can't be transferred from one mind to another. it's like kiicking a ball. you can teach me how to kick the ball, but if you kick it for me then i still won't KNOW what it feels like to kick the ball no matter how good you are at describing it. (IMAGINING is NOT knowing). personally i believe that these sorts of things don't explain anything to us except what our mind feels like when we have these experiences. i don't believe that one can make meaningful, share-able claims about the world based on these experiences, just tell stories (fictions).

But.... if the question was "Astrology... based on FACT or not?", then I would say that the answer is very likely "No", since facts require common sense and logic, more than faith.

this can be construed as a question of semantics IMO. it depends on what you mean by "based", among other split hairs.

i think a case could be made that it is based in fact, in the sense that the theory is rooted in facts--the configurations of celestial bodies exist, we're fairly certain of that. but we dont' have a lot of means verifying the claims made from these facts except for anecdotal evidence (stories, inherently subjective). so yeah, i'd conclude that astrology is based in fact, sorta the way that stories are based in fact ("American Gangster" was based on a true story, and Frank Lucas actually existed--but the movie, a half decent story, has sweet **** all to do with historical fact, for the most part). some movies are truer than others, that is they contradict fewer confirmed historical facts, but theyr'e ALL stories. even documentaries. and astrology at its best is storytelling.

at its worst, its' a way to take your money.

[zeusbheld]

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.

You're weirding me out, Zeus. Did somebody steal your login? Do you have relatives/friends/ lovers who are into this claptrap? What's going on?

as i said in another post, bait.

i don't really give a **** if astrology works or not, or what is meant by "works." never really had an opinion on it. note that i was careful to say i had not seen such a paper.

what i was interested in was not what people responded but how. predictably, quite a few people responded rather shrilly that i must have my head up my ass (and after reading the 'bad astronomy astrology section, i can confirm that i did have my head up my ass. some responses were fairly sensible, and you even had a good link to back it up (bad astronomy is good btw). but what interests me more is the responses wherein people can't really say why. in other words, where people have decided astrology offends their common sense without really bothering to think through why.

i noticed while baiting creationists a while back (in TF and elsewhere), that a lot of the pro evolution people couldn't really give much of an account of why they believed what they did. these responses were particularly interesting, and worth putting my head up my ass to find them.

incidentally, i personally have never had any use for astrology as a decision making tool (i always have and still do, however, rely on the occasional coin toss).

The studies have been done, though I won't bother to dig up links. It's simple enough to test...you have folks fill out personality surveys, and use statistics to see if the results are in accord with a preset "astrological" criteria. Surprise, surprise, nothing interesting ever emerges.

Good podcast: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/

Another suggestion: http://www.badastronomy.com/

glancing through bad astronomy and the papers he's linked to, (which are very good): the thing is with the bad astronomy guy's argument, like a proper scientist he's proper physical causes and verifiable results but...

In the spirit of giving the astrologers more rope, so to speak, let's assume that despite all the scientific evidence against such a thing, there really is an effect on us by the planets. If it exists, it must be measurable, and for astrologers to be able to use it to cast horoscopes, their claims must be consistent.

i think that astrology in practice is more storytelling based on vague corellations, rather than causal relationships, with arrangements of celestial bodies. in short, not only are their claims not measurable or consistent, they cannot be.

in short i believe the question he answered is "is astrology science or psuedo-science" rather than "is astrology wrong". right or wrong, it's storytelling. whether a story is useful to someone or not depends more on the quality of the story and subjective importance than the facts. is Homer wrong? is Dante? in what sense? that said, i've always doubted that there are astrologists who are as good at telling stories as Homer so i don't bother with astrology i just reread the Iliad. but....

saying that astrology-based stories are just that--stories--would be fine if astrology were claiming to be as useful or 'true' as a Dave Eggers novel. but they're not. as Bad Astrology man points out, most astrologers are making flat out predictive claims, not telling stories from a somewhat arbitrary starting point. (i gave a cursory glance at a few pro-astrology websites to confirm this, at least enough for my purposes). and even as stories go, i suspect i'll learn more about how to cope with whatever my future holds from that Dave Eggers novel.

the bad astronomy guy makes a very important point: since astrology IS widely accepted as predictive, and thereby promotes un-critical thinking, which is not in anyone''s best interests (except astrologers)

thanks for "bad astronomy" i hadn't seen that before it's hot stuff and is pretty much enough to affirm my own (lazy, arbitrary) decision that ii have no real use for astronomy.

question answered, astrology sucks. NEXT....

sorry if this is a bit jumbled, i'm watching a movie, answering the phone, and being assaulted by a purring furball all in the course of this post.

[farang_subson]

Few astrologers, astrology buffs, or astrology skeptics would claim that astrology is mere story telling. It's supposed to predict stuff. That makes it falsifiable. As you intimate.

As for astrology being based in some degree of "fact", I suppose every wacked-out belief system can make that claim.

Did you know that some astrologers even incorporate asteroids into their "systems"? Ceres (one of your wives, Zeus!), once refused to eat. Apparently, some astrologers have gone on to conclude that the asteroid Ceres, discovered and named in the early 1800's, governs eating disorders. Go figure.

[CessyInBkk]

Astrology was a way to try and explain and predict something which was observed. We can say the much of the explanation and prediction is wrong, but observations are observations.

For example, a study that was done that suggested that seasonal variations do correlate to certain personality types . So we can see something that astrologers observed has a basis in fact.

So yes, there is some truth(I dont wanna define here what is the truth) to astrology. But no, distant stars and comets do not determine your fate.

[zeusbheld]

Few astrologers, astrology buffs, or astrology skeptics would claim that astrology is mere story telling.

safe bet a lot of pomo 'cultural theorists' would :twisted:

although the careful observer will note that accepting it as storytelling or 'mystical experience' neuters its predictive capacity almost as surely as debunking it.

It's supposed to predict stuff. That makes it falsifiable. As you intimate.

having actually looked at a couple of astrology sites in the meantime it does seem to not only attempt to predict stuff but concrete stuff like you *might* get a great job on wednesday, not just "wednesday will be a great day" which to my eye is not really a prediction (subjective).

As for astrology being based in some degree of "fact", I suppose every wacked-out belief system can make that claim.

i believe almost every one can. certainly most stories are, but they're still stories.

Did you know that some astrologers even incorporate asteroids into their "systems"? Ceres (one of your wives, Zeus!), once refused to eat. Apparently, some astrologers have gone on to conclude that the asteroid Ceres, discovered and named in the early 1800's, governs eating disorders. Go figure.

don't tell Hera i have other wives she'll cut my balls off.

[PJack]

then again sometimes astrology seems to make sense

[CiaranM]

then again sometimes astrology seems to make sense

Hey, even vbroker does sometimes.

that's an even bigger load of bollocks than astology !!!!