Pisces or Aries ?

[Saint]

The MSN horoscope states the dates of Pisces and Aries as:
Aries
March 20 - April 18
A number of different and unexpected possibilities might have you a bit confused about which way you want to go regarding both your professional and personal goals, dear Aries. At some point you may face a choice of some kind, but right now you aren't really all that sure about the direction you want to take. Don't rush it. It isn't necessary to do it all today. Wait a few days, consider your options, and then make your decision.

Pisces
February 18 - March 19
The attitudes of others towards you, particularly close friends, may seem to be changing, and you aren't likely to be sure about what this means. The fact is, dear Pisces, you are changing, and some of your friends may like what you're becoming, and others might feel less comfortable. You can't stop what's happening - and in the long run it's going to be a very positive process. It just may be difficult now. Bear with both your friends and yourself.


So far as I know, my birthday 20thMarch belongs to pisces, how come it is Aries this year ? Is it due to leap year ?

[tribdog]

Wow, that is weird. Sounds fishy to me. lol get it? fishy? pisces? sigh nevermind
Speaking of leap year my grandpa was born Feb 29, 1896. There was no leap year in the year 1900 so he was 8 on his first birthday. If he wouldn't have died we would have both had our 23rd birthday in the same month. Makes me wish I hadn't killed him.

[jimmy p]

ahh tribdog, you'll be the death of me....you are joking, right? :eek:

[ray b]

leap year yes but it allso depends on what time of day and time zone you were born in
and the year you were born in too

[tribdog]

of course I'm joking. I'm glad I killed him.
whoops there I go again. okay I didn't kill my grandpa. the leap year stuff is true though.

[Saint]

All the time I'm Pisces.
I like the two fish.

[jimmy p]

I am a pisces also!!

[tribdog]

Wow, what a coincidence. Not only are both of pisces, guess what? I'm aquarius. Small world huh?

[Les Sleeth]

Still causing trouble I see. As a Pisces without cusp bipolar tendencies, I can say with complete confidence you are experiencing astrological bifarcations.

[Kerrie]

saint, i love questions such as these! astrology is an avid hobby of mine...the "sun" enters each sun sign differently each year, so your sign truly depends on the year you were born...

i suggest you try astro.com and that will tell you exactly your sign for free...

[Monique]

I still find it strange that a science minded person would believe this stuff.. you really believe it?

[jimmy p]

Monique is no fun ;)

[skywise]

It's an avid hobby of mine as well..
It's not really about believing it or not. I've applied to my life and compared it to what I know of friends and family and it just works. I don't know how or why exactly but it's a very useful tool for understanding myself and others.

The trick is looking at the full picture (the whole natal chart) as opposed to just Sun sign astrology.

[Kerrie]

I still find it strange that a science minded person would believe this stuff.. you really believe it?

monique, astrology is not the horoscope you read in the paper, or the 900 numbers you call...astrology actually uses a lot of geometry, astronomy, human psychology, and time to learn how it all ties together...the true art of astrology has the theory that the universe and all of life are in sync, and the aspects of the planets tend to reflect what is going on with humanity in general...sort of like how the moon affects the tides :wink:

i have studied for 13 years now using a person's natal chart-basically the blueprint of where the aspects were the moment a person is able to breathe on his or her own and is no longer dependent on their mother...it takes years to understand and learn, and many do not have this patience, and along with the huge amount of frauds, it has given astrology a bad name...

here's a little experiment for those of you unfamiliar with astrology...beginning april 6th, mercury goes into retrograde - a regular event that happens around 3 times a year...this is a true fact that when you track mercury for the following 3 weeks approx, it will look like it is going backwards, but it is just an optical illusion...now, during this time up until april 30, take note of how many fouled up things happen, such as networks being down, mail arriving late, your internet not functioning (as examples)...mercury in retrograde tends to reflect (NOT PREDICT) small events that have to do with communication, foul ups essentially...traditionally, this time is not good for weddings, signing contracts or making large purchases as they will become "undone" so to speak...

i think astrology should be studied more by science, but i don't believe it has been given the chance it should...i would not have wasted 13 years of my time on the subject if i didn't feel there was some kind of truth to it :smile:

[tribdog]

I'm reminded of the college professor, I don't have the details so don't ask, who passed out hororscopes to his class. After they had a chance to review their horoscopes the professor asked them if they felt they were accurate and something like 90 or 95% agreed they were accurate. The professor then told them to pass the horoscope to the person behind them, because that's who's horoscope they had actually been viewing.

[skywise]

That's a perfect example of a narrow segment-'sun sign' astrology- being used to discredit through extreme over-simplication a very broad and intensively detailed topic.

[Kerrie]

I'm reminded of the college professor, I don't have the details so don't ask, who passed out hororscopes to his class. After they had a chance to review their horoscopes the professor asked them if they felt they were accurate and something like 90 or 95% agreed they were accurate. The professor then told them to pass the horoscope to the person behind them, because that's who's horoscope they had actually been viewing.

the college professor proved that typical horoscopes for only 12 personality types was incorrect...natal astrology takes in the signs for all of the planets, the moon, and the infinite aspects formed between all of them to the earth...again, another example of what the masses thinks astrology is, but is unaware of how it truly works.

[cookiemonster]

Could we get a little crash course in how it works?

I've never put much faith in it because I've never seen a mechanism to actually describe how it works.

cookiemonster

[Monique]

The existence, and difference of personality, of (identical) twins disproves the principle to me.

[Kerrie]

The existence, and difference of personality, of (identical) twins disproves the principle to me.

yes, but their personalities are quite similar comparatively speaking...their experiences are what helps form their differences...everyone has a choice in who they are and what they become, astrology does not claim that someone will be certain ways, but it does point to common tendencies in individuals with certain strong aspects...

the best form of proof is to have your chart professionally done instead of reading about it...having your chart done is first hand experience with astrology instead of about it...but because there is usually a fee involved, most will snub this and continue to believe what they choose...

there used to be a thread of astrology in the skeptic/debunk forum about a year ago...i got into it with chroot :) i am unable to find it, as it seems that the older threads have been deleted as far as a crash course goes...feel free to ask me questions, i am sure i can answer them or find an answer...(sorry, i have gone over this topic so many times here, that i get exhausted repeating myself :eek: )

[Math Is Hard]

Zooby and I are birthday twins and we're like peas in a pod, huh Zoob?
:wink:
I am dissapointed that you astrology buffs never answered my question about what the zodiac sign of a baby born on Mars would be. Seriously, would we have to overhaul the old geo-centric system?

[Ivan Seeking]

there used to be a thread of astrology in the skeptic/debunk forum about a year ago...i got into it with chroot :) i am unable to find it, as it seems that the older threads have been deleted as far as a crash course goes...

Kerrie, I thought this is the one that you meant but I didn't see chroot...

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2294&page=1&pp=15

I had to look manually...the search didn't find this for some reason.

[cookiemonster]

The search feature has been pretty disappointing lately. I was reading a thread about a boat and when I did a search for boat, nothing came up.

Maybe I should complain in the other forum...

cookiemonster

[Tsu]

The search feature has been pretty disappointing lately. I was reading a thread about a boat and when I did a search for boat, nothing came up.

Maybe I should complain in the other forum...

cookiemonster
I've had very similar experiences using the search function in the old forum format. I was hoping it would be better in this new one. Bummer. :frown:

[Monique]

mercury goes into retrograde [..] now, during this time up until april 30, take note of how many fouled up things happen, such as networks being down, mail arriving late, your internet not functioning (as examples)...mercury in retrograde tends to reflect (NOT PREDICT) small events that have to do with communication, foul ups essentially...traditionally, this time is not good for weddings, signing contracts or making large purchases as they will become "undone" so to speak...
Tends to reflect but nót predict.. so if something happens you can attribute it to mercury, if nothing happens then that is fine too.. sounds not right to me. Also how would you hypothesize that mercury could have such an effect besides the psychological confirmation? Things you note tend to stick more in your head and stand out, also people start living according to their prediction.

For instance: ask people if many fooled up things happened the past month. Now tell them that many fooled up things are going to happen the coming month and at the end of that month ask the same question. The outcoming is going to be different, no matter whether there were more events or not.

i think astrology should be studied more by science, but i don't believe it has been given the chance it should...i would not have wasted 13 years of my time on the subject if i didn't feel there was some kind of truth to it :smile:
Brian Greene spent 17 years of his life studying string theory so I think you are not alone in that respect :wink:

[Kerrie]

monique, astrology does not claim to be scientific, as it is not, and the reaseon it can never be scientific is because of human free will...have we been able to understand human free will scientifically? astrology as i said before does not claim to predict a person's set personality, but can point out to strong tendencies...once the scientific community stops trying to make it science and realize it's more of an art and a language, then it may get the chance it deserves...

thanks ivan for digging up that old thread...to be honest, i would rather suggest reading that thread as it is 4 pages long with the same info i would provide in this thread...

i will say that most people still truly misunderstand what astrology is meant to be...to be completely objective about astrology, i suggest stop reading your horoscope in the newspaper/web, stop believing what die hard scientists (uneducated about what astrology is meant) to say about the topic, and really read what the reputable astrologers have to say about what it...

here is a quote of mine from that other thread:

"so, as long as there are people trying to prove it as a science, it will continue to have the reputation it has...for those who understand it's language will find the ability to understand people and their motives much better..."

[skywise]

well said, Kerrie

[Monique]

Astrology is not a science, cannot be proven, shouldn't hold scientific standards for it.. so what is the point, really?

I mean, it is impressive that you can know so much about the movement of celestial bodies, maybe it had an effect on people who were living in caves (where a full moon would predict a good hunt), but for the rest I think it is better to predict someone's future on the basis of the television programs they're watching..

And oh, I read your replies in the 8 paged thread that Ivan supplied.

[Monique]

OK: perfect analogy: the weather. Weather can be scientifically proven with certain probabilities. The exact same should be possible with astrology, also making it scientific and thus acceptable.

Now, how many people have actually tested astrology scientifically and what came out? If you are saying there is an effect it MUST be measurable, otherwise there is no effect per definition. Thus it SHOULD stand up against scientific tests.

[skywise]

How well does the field of psychology hold up to scientific inquiry?

Irregardless, it is a field that has undoubtedly helped a great many people understand themselves better. Astrology is simply a more ancient (yet continually evolving) form of psychology.

I read that entire 8 page too and found the intolerance, condescension and absolutism disturbing. It makes me wary of putting myself out there if it only means I will garner responses like some of those. (Not that I'm getting that feeling from you Monique.. :) )

[Monique]

Thanks skywise, I wouldn't wish to offend anyone, surely there is no difference between string theorists and astrologists, both believe in an unproven theory which is supposed to describe reality. The only difference is that string theory is supposed to match up to the world of experiment, at least it doesn't contradict it, and there is a real firm ground of how it is supposed to work. I don't see that with astrology, and the fact that it is claimed to be unscientific by the people who stúdy it, really discredits it to me.

The scientific method is that you make a hypothesis, you do a prediction, you go and test that prediction on a selected sample and compare that to a null value (from a random sample).

Sure there are going to be deviations due to personal experiences. But if astrology really as an effect on a person's life, you are going to find that back in your data!

For instance, you read the natal chart out for a really large group of people and at the same time they are asked to fill in a questionaire. Then you split the group in two: group A is the sample where the natal record is kept with the correct person, group B is the control where all natal records are mingled up and put back at a random person.

Now someone is going to go through the natal record and see how they match up with the questionaire. Based on that an measure is given as to how far they match up. THEN you go and divide that big pile of data into the two groups again (it is important to keep such studies blind).

It should be evident from the data that the prediction rate in group A exceeds that of the one in group B, IF astrology is a real thing.

[Evo]

I have several problems with astrology. First, the constellations are not in the same place they were when the first astrological charts were created, but no one has ever corrected them, they are currently irrelevant.

Second, the "constellations" are "fictitious", the relation of the stars to each other is imaginary and only appear in those formations as viewed from earth. From another point in space you would not see these "constellations". They are not a real "group" in space. How can someone place significance on something that is imaginary?

Third, how can a ball of rock or gas millions of miles away have more impact on a person's personality than a nearby boulder?

[Monique]

You could really mess with someone's mind by placing a large rock under their desk :wink:
*little sarcastic joke* :biggrin:

[Ivan Seeking]

OK: perfect analogy: the weather. Weather can be scientifically proven with certain probabilities. The exact same should be possible with astrology, also making it scientific and thus acceptable.

An interesting note here: Since we don't usually see last week's weather report we don't seem to remember that accuracy of weather reports. This winter I was working on two projects for the state. The equipment is located in remote locations and in addition to modem comms, I often had to go on site for various problems. For this reason I became very dependant on weather reports. Critical weather prediction in Oregon seems to be less accurate than random chance. It got to the point that I could almost count on just the opposite of that predicted. If they said that there would be snow on the passes, then plan to go because it will surely be rain or nothing at all. When they called for rain, it snowed. When they called for a sunny day, it rained. This went on all during the fall and winter. It was very frustrating and expensive.

According to Willard Scott, I think it was, modern long range forecasts are 55% accurate. The Farmer's Almanac is 45% accurate.

As for Astrology, what we are really talking about here are cycles. Could there be hidden cycles in our biology or in the planet itself that could affect the characteristics of our offspring? Could celestial objects simply act as approximate clocks by which to measure other natural cycles? I always hear the demand for a cause and effect relationship with the planets in order to justify astrology. It seems to me that there could be coincidental relationships given enough hidden biological, geological, meteorological...etc...clocks. At last count I heard that we are thought to have perhaps hundreds of biological clocks that influence aging. Couldn't there be other types of natural clocks as well that simply coincide with astronomical cycles just by chance? If there is anything to astrology I think that something along this line might explain the apparent relationship to the planets. Be it coincidental or not, the little bit of serious astrology that I have been exposed to had me pegged pretty well...and don't start on me about Randi's test. I have seen his demonstration for astrology. His basic point is valid, but he seems to think that given considered thought, I [and anyone who doesn't agree with him] can't tell the difference between distinctive traits and traits that apply to everyone.

Edit: Toned down a little - I have found Randi to be offensive at times.

[Njorl]

Wow, that is weird. Sounds fishy to me. lol get it? fishy? pisces? sigh nevermind
Speaking of leap year my grandpa was born Feb 29, 1896. There was no leap year in the year 1900 so he was 8 on his first birthday. If he wouldn't have died we would have both had our 23rd birthday in the same month. Makes me wish I hadn't killed him.

I don't know why, but that reminded me of the joke, "I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not screaming in terror like his passengers."

I wish I remember who said that.

Njorl

[Les Sleeth]

Astrology is not a science, cannot be proven, shouldn't hold scientific standards for it.. so what is the point, really?

I mean, it is impressive that you can know so much about the movement of celestial bodies, maybe it had an effect on people who were living in caves (where a full moon would predict a good hunt), but for the rest I think it is better to predict someone's future on the basis of the television programs they're watching.

If you are familiar with the exaggerations of pseudoscience, you know how theories about a legitimate principle can be extended far beyond what is known about it. Do we fault the principle, or are those who over-extend the blame?

Possibly a very intuitive someone a long time ago noticed similarities among people born within certain time periods. Since time periods also correspond to celestial movement, he/she tied those similarities to that (maybe the two are related, maybe not). After that, people who took up this idea extended it into great detail. You can see something similar in the Chinese concept of yin and yang, where it was noticed the universe seems to have a strong tendency toward polarization. It is an excellent observation, possibly indicating some sort of underlying polar nature in the fabric of space. Whatever it might mean, now, many centuries later, the concept of yin and yang is applied to everything from home design to fortune telling. So again I ask, do we fault the principle, or are those who over-extend the blame?

I actually think if the study of astrology's general principles were conducted properly, by unbiased, non-smirking, non-condescending, non-already-decided a priori empiricists, they might find the kind of general, very general, tendencies astrology predicts. Does that have to be magical or mystical? Not at all, it can be seen as purely mechanical.

Analogously, if you study how harmony works in music, you can see why some notes fit in a piece of music and why others do not. It is because they suit the pattern of the overall tune. Looking at birth, it happens within the regular cycles of the universe. Why should we be so suspect of a concept that says a pattern is repeated that affects personality? Right now plenty of physicalists are claiming that the human personality is nothing BUT the influence of physical factors from genes and neurons to conditioning. Why couldn't a time pattern be affecting things as well?

As someone who intensely dislikes superstition, I can say that I was surprised when I noticed the "generalities" of personalities born in specific time periods. I think my point is, one might open one's mind a little to see if anything at all is present in astrology buried beneath the layers of obsessive thinking about it, without having to buy all the stuff enthusiasts may have ignorantly developed in conjunction with it over the millennia.

[tribdog]

I think that astrology would be extremely accurate and everyone would be into it if it didn't have one tiny little flaw built into it. The more I look as astrology the more I like the theory I just have that one little problem with it. I just can't get over the little flaw of it being total and complete crap, but other than that...
Njorl funny joke!
One good thing about Astrology, it gave the world the most used pick-up line ever. What's your sign?
Now I'm sure I'll be accused of being closed minded, and in this case I'll plead guilty as charged. I also know that if I staple my lips to my forehead I'd blow up like a balloon everytime I sneezed and no matter what you tell me different I will remain closed minded on the subject and stay away from staplers and pepper.

[Kerrie]

I have several problems with astrology. First, the constellations are not in the same place they were when the first astrological charts were created, but no one has ever corrected them, they are currently irrelevant.

Second, the "constellations" are "fictitious", the relation of the stars to each other is imaginary and only appear in those formations as viewed from earth. From another point in space you would not see these "constellations". They are not a real "group" in space. How can someone place significance on something that is imaginary?

Third, how can a ball of rock or gas millions of miles away have more impact on a person's personality than a nearby boulder?

evo, another misunderstanding about astrology-the constellations have NOTHING to do with how astrology works, this is the sort of "myths" that uneducated scientists cast of astrology...while the fact that constellations have moved is true, they have no impact on astrology...astrology has to do with the planets, the sun, and their geometrical aspect to the earth...the only relation the constellations have with astrology, are the names which name the ecliptic (or house) that the sun is currently aspecting the earth...

[Kerrie]

As for Astrology, what we are really talking about here are cycles. Could there be hidden cycles in our biology or in the planet itself that could affect the characteristics of our offspring? Could celestial objects simply act as approximate clocks by which to measure other natural cycles? I always hear the demand for a cause and effect relationship with the planets in order to justify astrology. It seems to me that there could be coincidental relationships given enough hidden biological, geological, meteorological...etc...clocks.

THANK YOU IVAN!!! you hit the nail right on the head, astrology is a study of cycles, the cycles of human tendencies in coordination with the the cycles of the celestial bodies...what moves the planets, the sun, and all of the celestial bodies? i am not sure, but could it be the same force that moves us?

[Kerrie]

The scientific method is that you make a hypothesis, you do a prediction, you go and test that prediction on a selected sample and compare that to a null value (from a random sample).

Sure there are going to be deviations due to personal experiences. But if astrology really as an effect on a person's life, you are going to find that back in your data!

again monique, you will see astrology as incorrect because you are a scientist :smile: try not applying the scientific theory to astrology because it is not a science :smile:

intuition, understanding of how the planets move in relation to our earth, understanding of aspects (oppositions, trines, conjunctions - all factual placements of the planets in relation to the earth), and time to study people and psychology will help you understand the intricate language of it...

if you take an ephemeris-the book astrologists use-you will find tables of astronomical data...if i have my ephemeris, i can tell you what planets will be where in the sky, it will tell me that mercury is passing behind the sun (aka mercury in retrograde), but my ephemeris will not tell me how people will tend to react during certain aspects...that is the learned art and skill of the astrologist (very similar to a psychologist as skywise said)...

[Evo]

the only relation the constellations have with astrology, are the names which name the ecliptic (or house) that the sun is currently aspecting the earth...I have no qualms with people into astrology, actually during my teens it was very popular and I learned a lot about it, ephemerides, I could plot charts. Interesting to learn.

But the "wholesale" astrology of "sun signs" is inaccurate. I was born on April 30th, so my sun sign is Taurus. Well, that was true a couple of thousand years ago. When I was born the sun would actually be in Sagittarius (I don't know which it really is, I'm just guessing) but I do know on April 30th the sun is no longer in Taurus.

So as Ivan & M L Sleeth pointed out, perhaps it has more to do with seasons.

[Kerrie]

I have no qualms with people into astrology, actually during my teens it was very popular and I learned a lot about it, ephemerides, I could plot charts. Interesting to learn.

But the "wholesale" astrology of "sun signs" is inaccurate. I was born on April 30th, so my sun sign is Taurus. Well, that was true a couple of thousand years ago. When I was born the sun would actually be in Sagittarius (I don't know which it really is, I'm just guessing) but I do know on April 30th the sun is no longer in Taurus.

So as Ivan & M L Sleeth pointed out, perhaps it has more to do with seasons.

evo, i think you are still misunderstanding what i am saying, constellations do not have anything do with astrology, there are 12 houses, 30 degrees each around the ecliptic of the earth that represent these "sun signs"...the sun was in the house of taurus when you were born, not in the constellation of it...try reading up on the ecliptic of the earth, it will get into the geometry of astrology.

Ecliptic (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/eclip.html)

Ecliptic 2 (http://www.astrologyclub.org/articles/ecliptic/ecliptic.htm)

[Les Sleeth]

I think that astrology would be extremely accurate and everyone would be into it if it didn't have one tiny little flaw built into it. The more I look as astrology the more I like the theory I just have that one little problem with it. I just can't get over the little flaw of it being total and complete crap, but other than that...

Tell the truth -- you haven't looked into it at all. It seems to me you've looked at astrology superficially because that is how you talk about it. It's good ridicule material at a science site, so isn't that what you've investigated it for?

And guess what . . . my criticism isn't from someone who's into astrology, but rather from someone advocating an open mind. However, if you can successfully argue why we need to discount all aspects of astrology, I would like to hear you make your case. Do so and I'll change my mind about being open to astrology.

Now I'm sure I'll be accused of being closed minded, and in this case I'll plead guilty as charged. I also know that if I staple my lips to my forehead I'd blow up like a balloon everytime I sneezed and no matter what you tell me different I will remain closed minded on the subject and stay away from staplers and pepper.

Logic please. What exactly is analogous about your experiences with astrology and your experience of (metaphorically of course) stapling your lips to your forehead? In other words, you've claimed your close-mindedness is due to your experience with astrology. Are you willing to share those disenchanting experiences with us all so we too can understand the fallacy of openness to at least something being true about astrological principles?

[Monique]

again monique, you will see astrology as incorrect because you are a scientist :smile: try not applying the scientific theory to astrology because it is not a science :smile:
Thank you Kerrie, you have once and for all proven that Astrology is a waiste of time to study, holds no truth at all, and cannot tell anything about a persons tendencies.

If you have read my post with attentions I réally don't see why you don't get that. Science is a method that analyses effect, if there is no effect there is no effect. point. No effect is no theory.

[Kerrie]

Thank you Kerrie, you have once and for all proven that Astrology is a waiste of time to study, holds no truth at all, and cannot tell anything about a persons tendencies.

If you have read my post with attentions I réally don't see why you don't get that. Science is a method that analyses effect, if there is no effect there is no effect. point. No effect is no theory.

monique, let's just stop right here. you seem to have a bit of a harsh tone in this post, and i am trying to help you understand why it is not a science, but an art, something that cannot be analyzed scientifically-and maybe our science has not yet advanced to comprehend just how it works..and i am sorry that it cannot be "proven scientifically" within our current knowledge of science so that you can understand it the way you are used to understanding how our world works...it's unfortunate that your words tend to lead me to believe you have already closed your mind because it doesn't "fit"...

[Kerrie]

a good analogy of how astrology can work i found after doing some reading is take DNA and genetics for example...you have alcoholism tendencies in your family, however you have made the conscious decision to not drink...a natal chart points out strengths and weaknesses within our personality, however as human beings who ultimately decide who we are consciously, we can overcome or strengthen these tendencies within ourself...the natal chart does an excellent job of spotlighting these tendencies and making us aware...

[Monique]

a good analogy of how astrology can work i found after doing some reading is take DNA and genetics for example...
No, that is a bad analogy. Alcoholic tendencies can be measured scientifically in families based on statistics. I have been involved with such statistics myself, showing for instance that a sibling of an affected person has a 16% relative risk to develop the same particular disease.

You are telling me that astrology is not measurable by statistics, thus it is false. Clear as daylight. If the expert themselve claim there is absolutely no way to measure something that is indeed supposed to have an impact, then.. what?

Note that I am not talking about why or how it works, I am talking about whéther it works.

[tribdog]

actually I did try to look into astrology once. My girlfriend was into astrology and, being the romantic guy I am, I wanted to give her a detailed horoscope. Where I ran into trouble was when I checked more than one book on the subject out of the library. The books weren't standardized and even contradicted each other. If astrology was valid the books wouldn't contradict each other. The books also talked about the need to interpret the charts based on your observations. So in order to make a good reading you needed to be able to read someone, which negates the need for the astrology chart in the first place.

[hypnagogue]

I am of the same general mind as Kerrie, Ivan and LW: we should not reject astrology out of hand as there may be some subtle but existent substance to it.

At the same time, I agree with Monique that if astrology predicts general tendencies of people as a function of time of birth, then statistical analysis should be able to display these tendencies for all to see. This does not mean we have to concoct a scientific theory or anything like that-- at the bare minimum, if astrology can accurately show/predict/however-you-want-to-phrase-it general tendencies in people's mental/behavioral dispositions, these tendencies should naturally be reflected in at least a theory-neutral, statistical analysis. If a properly conducted statistical analysis with a sufficiently large sample size shows no significant correlations, then there are no correlations, as a matter of tautological fact.

It is a further, open question as to whether any truly valid statistical analyses of this nature have been conducted. Ideally such a project would involve experienced, well-regarded astrologers working in concert with experienced, well-regarded scientists to conduct a controlled, double blind, large scale statistical analysis with a methodology that is widely agreed upon by both astrologers and scientists alike to be fair and accurate. Another critical factor would be the extent to which practitioners on both sides of the table are truly unbiased and willing to let experiment determine results, rather than having an agenda to prove things one way or the other.

[Monique]

At the same time, I agree with Monique that if astrology predicts general tendencies of people as a function of time of birth, then statistical analysis should be able to display these tendencies for all to see.
[..]
If a properly conducted statistical analysis with a sufficiently large sample size shows no significant correlations, then there are no correlations, as a matter of tautological fact.
[..]
Another critical factor would be the extent to which practitioners on both sides of the table are truly unbiased and willing to let experiment determine results, rather than having an agenda to prove things one way or the other.
Finally a person who believes in astrology, who also agrees that it can be proven by scientific means *big relief*

And for your last sentence: it would be hard if not impossible for people to be biased in any way in a double blind study.

[Kerrie]

Finally a person who believes in astrology, who also agrees that it can be proven by scientific means *big relief*

And for your last sentence: it would be hard if not impossible for people to be biased in any way in a double blind study.

monique, can human free will be catagorized and statistically analyzed? this is the huge variable that "disproves" astrology as a science...as a virgo, you may have the tendency to be pessimistic, detailed, meticulous, does this mean you are? if astrology were a science, you would automatically be all of these characteristics, however, you do have the free will to control this tendency, correct? how much of astrology do you really know with your own studies and experience monique?

hyp...astrology has been through its shares of studies, and it seems those studies i have run across on the web are conducting by scienctists...intuition is used in interpretation, and from what i understand, intuition is not a "reliable" factor for conducting science...so for monique, astrology will not be proven to be accurate or true because of this factor until she educates herself with astrology without the factor of science in the way...

i am done with this topic, it seems again that i am going to just debate endlessly with those who are out to pound my experience, understanding and knowledge of one of the oldest "sciences" down to the ground because it doesn't fit in today's perspective...i will recommend a good starting place that offers FREE natal charts and computer generated interpretations if those who wish to step outside the scientific community and venture into a community that supports human healing and human understanding just as much as science strives:

Astro (www.astro.com)

[hypnagogue]

monique, can human free will be catagorized and statistically analyzed? this is the huge variable that "disproves" astrology as a science...as a virgo, you may have the tendency to be pessimistic, detailed, meticulous, does this mean you are? if astrology were a science, you would automatically be all of these characteristics, however, you do have the free will to control this tendency, correct?

Again, for astrological tendencies to be born out by the data, we would not need anything close to saying "all virgos are pessimistic." All we would need is something to the effect that "there is a statistically significant correlation between being a virgo and having the characteristic of being pessimistic."

So, for instance, if we find that virgos as a population had (say) a 60% chance of being characterized as pessimistic as opposed to the other signs who might have an average of (say) 50% chance of correlation, then as long as the sample size is big enough, we have strong statistical evidence that a virgo has a higher tendency to be pessimistic as compared to the average non-virgo, even if there are still plenty of virgos who cannot be properly characterized as such.

Of course there might be some conflation here if there are other signs that tend to be pessimistic according to astrology as well. To correct for this, we could say that if there is some set of birthtimes that, according to astrology, have a tendency to be pessimistic as contrasted with another set of birthtimes that, according to astrology, have a tendency to be optimistic, this should be born out by the data as well.

But the basic idea is that if there are tendencies, then there are statistical correlations (by definition), and a properly conducted study should be able to find and demonstrate these correlations.

By the way Monique, I didn't say I believe in astrology, I only said we should keep an open mind.

[Monique]

Thank you for re-emphasizing my point hypnagogue, I am really stumped why Kerrie is so closed minded about scientific proof.

I never closed my mind towards astrology, I even acknowledged the fact that I can see the moon having an effect on people, or that simply knowing your chart will change your behaviour.

monique, can human free will be catagorized and statistically analyzed?
If you take a large enough sample: yes, you can. As I said before I have dealt with genes and disease and how they predispose people. If you have a bad gene you are not going to get the disease per definition. There are environmental conditions that alter that chance. Statistics will point out a deviation that people with a bad gene have a stronger tendency to develop disease compared to a general population.

The exact same test can be done for astrology, and I already posted a scheme by which such prove can be found.

this is the huge variable that "disproves" astrology as a science...as a virgo, you may have the tendency to be pessimistic, detailed, meticulous, does this mean you are?
If astrology holds any truth, yes there would be a tendency for a group of virgos to be more pessimistic than the general population. This can be measured. Ask whole your city to fill out a questionaire: would you define yourself as pessimistic. Then go and compare the virgo group with the whole group, you should find a deviation from the null value.

how much of astrology do you really know with your own studies and experience monique?
I published a paper in which I analyzed the genome for a gene that predisposes families to a disease (like you alcoholism example), I know how statistics can prove things. There are very ingenious methods to fish out the minutest effects.

so for monique, astrology will not be proven to be accurate or true because of this factor until she educates herself with astrology without the factor of science in the way...
I don't have to know anything about a theory to test the effect. Science is about being objective, not subjective.

[Ivan Seeking]

If one knows nothing of a subject, how does one develop a good test? Sometime it takes a lot of work to properly interpret claims that are based on human experience.

I'm really not defending astrology; I was a little impressed once or twice but that's about it. Really I am suggesting that good tests and studies are not so easy to find. Take for example the wild fluctuations in recommended diets. I can probably produce hundreds of tests and studies that seem to contradict each other. The latest, after first being told that eggs are good, then that cholesterol is bad, then that only the LDLs are bad and that HDLs are good, two days ago it was reported that no, HDLs may also be bad. In my life I have seen high protein, high complex carb, no fat, low fat, some fat, and now again high protein diets [edit: almost forgot the latest - no carb] come into fashion all based on the latest study. This is science: Complex issues usually require a great deal of study and time if we are to wring out the essential facts. How many serious large scale studies have done on astrology? I’d bet the number is less than the number that are in conflict with each other over the subject of diet.

[Monique]

The difference is that the one is being tested, investigated and improved. Many of the diets are popular interpretations of the real science, like the sun horoscopes would be. If you claim that HDLs are bad, you go and test a whole lot of people for their HDL levels and see if they are better or worse off with the value they have, whether there is any correlation between high HDL and heart disease for instance.

I myself have done such an investigation correlating gene polymorphisms with myocardial infarctions in a meta-analysis of the literature. I would only claim that such a polymorphism had an effect if I could find a statistical correlation. If I don't find the correlation, I wouldn't claim that the polymorphism has an effect on the disease deterioration.

Ofcourse the investigation is not done yet. You could start putting in a lot of covariates that you believe are also influencing the disease phenotype, like diet, severity of disease, age, gender. The field of statistics is really advanced these days, especially with the advent of the sequencing of the human genome.

You know that researchers are giving medical tests to whole population subgroups? They then sequence their whole genome, after which they do HUGE statistical analysis where they try to correlate disease phenotype with marker state. With family data they construct huge pedigrees and they write down cofactors that could be influencing the analysis and correct for those.

[Ivan Seeking]

The difference is that the one is being tested, investigated and improved. Many of the diets are popular interpretations of the real science, like the sun horoscopes would be. If you claim that HDLs are bad, you go and test a whole lot of people for their HDL levels and see if they are better or worse off with the value they have, whether there is any correlation between high HDL and heart disease for instance.

The point is that assuming the report on NBC is correct, we have been shown that HDLs are good, and now that HDLs are bad. Surely both results were based on good science; but clearly one of them is wrong or the issue is more complex than a simple good/bad rating. In either case this sort of thing has happened many times. Also, you completely ignore the possibility that the influence of HDL levels might be related to some other coincidental behavor; maybe people who consume a lot of HDLs tend to have high stress. Based on your example, to announce that HDLs are good or bad may mean nothing. If like astrology we are trying to find if HDL consumption even influences human health, I'd say that so far the results are mixed.

You know that researchers are giving medical tests to whole population subgroups? They then sequence their whole genome, after which they do HUGE statistical analysis where they try to correlate disease phenotype with marker state. With family data they construct huge pedigrees and they write down cofactors that could be influencing the analysis and correct for those.

So you feel that astrology is being studied implicity? I guess that's possible but I don't see this as inevitable. For example, how many genetists have contacted expert astrologers so that they would know if significant data relates to astrological claims? Would any geneticist include this observation in their papers?

[tribdog]

I've seen horoscopes that give a sign's "lucky lotto numbers" if there was any validity to the subject wouldn't everyone's numbers be the same?

[Ivan Seeking]

In all of these studies that are done, especially when it comes to issues of the mind, has anyone ever factored in the unique characteristics of people who are willing to take part in studies? Just wondering...seriously.

Also, since stress is bad, and since all these studies cause me to stress over the best lifestyle choices, I believe that all of these studies are bad for my health. :biggrin:

Edit: Monique, I misread your last post the first time so I edited my last post. :redface:

[Monique]

Reports have been published in peer-reviewed journals that if a baby is born in the summer, they have a higher risk for developing intracranial aneurysms later in life around their forties. Also aneurysms tend to rupture in mornings, there seems to be a circadian rhythm involved. There was another report to do with mothers of a child and aneurysms.. something dubious.. I can't remember it now, but it got published in a peer-reviewed journal. Even, aneurysms have been found to rupture when barometric pressure is low. You could do the same with a sun sign and see if there is a correlation.

I haven't heard about the HDLs being bad, I'd like to review that report and give my opinion. I still stand at my position that if something has a real effect, it will show in the data. If the HDL reports are contradictory than either the way it was tested is different, or there is no correlation.
Sure it might also be coincidental behaviour. I myself have implimented that fact in my own research. You can take into account the number of affected members in a family and the signal of the sample will increase enormously, in fact you are taking a surrogate measure of the gene and measuring that. Also, I don't measure the gene itself, rather I am measuring markers that are nearby on the genome. The closer the marker is to the gene, the stronger the signal will get.

The same with the diets, until they show me some real numbers I'm not going to claim one is better over the other. I might still hypothesize how one could be better over the other.

[Monique]

The point is that assuming the report on NBC is correct
Never assume that general news agencies supply correct information on scientific topics :wink:

[Ivan Seeking]

Could evidence for astrological claims lie hidden in the fray of the nature vs nurture studies of personalities?

[Monique]

You could quantify nurturing factors and correct for those. For instance only sample from middle class families, with a stay at home soccer mom, two siblings, boy and girl, a dog and two SUVs.

The question really is: how does astrology itself correct for such influences?

[skywise]

Has anyone read Carl Jung's writings on the threory of synchronicity- an acausal connecting principal?

I think it was he who used the analogy of a clock, which I was reminded of by Ivan's earlier post. Suppose that aliens were observing a human community where the people went to work when the clock struck a certain time and returned home when the clock hit another. The aliens may be inclined to conclude that the clocks somehow caused these actions to be taken. Of couse we know this isn't true, the events simply coincide. The clock "causes" the worker to head home no more than the planets "cause" me to be especially inclined towards artistic pursuits. Having the sun, mercury, mars and neptune in my fifth house at the moment of my birth synchronously coincides with me being of creative persuasion, amongst others. It's a pattern that's I've observed in other people as well.

Granted, I may not have applied proper scientific meithod to this observation but have experienced astrology giving me profound insight into my own and others' inner workings with enough reliablility that I will continue to employ it as a very useful tool in making my way through the universe. I don't need quantifiable, beyond a shadow of a doubt proofs because that's just not how I operate. I respect that not everyone operates this way and I would only hope that the same courtesy is extended towards me.

The thing is, I just happen to of the mind that, while the scientific view of natural law is quite valid and has brought us great understanding of the universe, it is lacking in something substantial. It's what my intuition tells me and I must listen.

This anecdote, related by Jung hints at this thing I intuitively feel scince is not capable of explaining.

A certain M. Deschamps, when a boy in Orleans, was once given a piece of plum-pudding by a M. de Fortgibu. Ten years later he discovered another plum-pudding in a Paris restaurant, and asked if he could have a piece. It turned out, however, that the plum-pudding was already ordered - by M. de Fortgibu. Many years afterwards M. Deschamps was invited to partake of a plum-pudding as a special rarity. While he was eating it he remarked that the only thing lacking was M. de Fortgibu. At that moment the door opened and an old, old man in the last stages of deterioration walked in: M. de Fortgibu, who had got hold of the wrong address and burst in on the party by mistake.

Perhaps rambled on abit here but I wanted to mention one more thing..
I don't know alot about physics but I came across this other thing Jung mentioned that seemed interesting. I don't know if it's up to date since it was written about 1960 and so... if this isn't true or is outdated, go easy on me okay?

...I must call the reader's attention to the well-known correspondence between the sun-spot periods and the mortality curve. The connecting link appears to be the disturbances of the earth's magnetic field, which in their turn are due to fluctuations in the proton radiation from the sun. These fluctuations also have an influence on "radio weather" by disturbing the ionosphere that reflects the radio waves. Investigation of these disturbances seems to indicate that the conjunctions, oppositions, and quartile aspects of the planets play a considerable part in increasing the proton radiation and thus causing electromagnetic storms. On the other hand the astrologically favourable trine and sextile aspects have been reported to produce uniform radio weather.

[Kerrie]

Granted, I may not have applied proper scientific meithod to this observation but have experienced astrology giving me profound insight into my own and others' inner workings with enough reliablility that I will continue to employ it as a very useful tool in making my way through the universe. I don't need quantifiable, beyond a shadow of a doubt proofs because that's just not how I operate. I respect that not everyone operates this way and I would only hope that the same courtesy is extended towards me.

The thing is, I just happen to of the mind that, while the scientific view of natural law is quite valid and has brought us great understanding of the universe, it is lacking in something substantial. It's what my intuition tells me and I must listen.

thank you skywise for reiterating my point of intuition...you are the only other member in this thread who understands the importance of intuition in astrology, and from what i understand, intuition doesn't have a place in science, yet it is my belief someday that science will someday prove how valuable and important intuition truly is.

[Monique]

Call it intuition or call it a mechanism.. the fact still remains that if there is a correlation, it can be proven.

[Les Sleeth]

thank you skywise for reiterating my point of intuition...you are the only other member in this thread who understands the importance of intuition in astrology, and from what i understand, intuition doesn't have a place in science, yet it is my belief someday that science will someday prove how valuable and important intuition truly is.

I think I understand it, but I'd go further and say intuition is important to everything, even science. Someday science might prove the value of intuition, but not if they subject everything to the sort of thinking Monique is so determined to apply. In the field I used to work in we would say, if the only tool one has is a hammer, one goes around treating everything like a nail. No offence intended to Monique, but listening to her reminds me a person who is "hammering" everything with the tools she's learned for her profession, but which may not be an effective way to evaluate all situations.

Another problem with Monique demanding statistical proof, which she is yet to acknowledge, is revealed by the fact that her words virtually drip with disdain for astrology, exposing her a priori opinion and therefore inablility to evalutate properly; afterall, she as much declared astrology bunk from the get go here (which is the general attitude of the scientific community). You can see if she were to set up the test, it would be to test that had no chance of proving anything but what she already believes.

No one with a truly open mind and adequate research skills has conducted the sort of investigation of astrology needed to disprove (or prove) its predictive capability. If there is some sort of universal influence on personality, and if it is a very general effect, then the kind of detailed statistical analysis used for biochemistry won't be directly translateable to astrology. To set up the test, it's going to take someone who truly wants to find out out what there is to astrology, and who is flexible and, yes, intuitive enough, to design the study to fit the unique aspects of a general, universal effect. That's why this statement of Monique's is so revealing about her micro-thinking approach, " it would be hard if not impossible for people to be biased in any way in a double blind study." It certainly is possible if the entire study is set up in such a way that what it tests is not what reveals anything about astrology! And then sure, after the test you get to go around and declare "see, I told you astrology is a bunch of crap."

Intuition . . . what is that anyway? As Canute put it in another thread, (paraphrasing) it is the space between the thoughts. It is the "feel" of things, not just the components of things. It is quite possible to both feel and think, with each contributing to the other. But if one is done too excessively, it seems to create either mush-brains or computer-brains respectively. In my opinion, astrology is somehing that requires a bit more feeling to pick up on. In fact, that's how I experience all "general" effects to be. That is, one feels them first, and then one tries to make sense of them. With astrology, I do feel something there, but I am not that sure I believe all the ways people have tried to make sense of it (such as the detailed chart stuff, for instance).

But in any case, to me this issue isn't much about astrology. My objection is a increasingly vocal element of the science community who insist we all turn into computers. Their certainty they are "right," and that anything not suited to computer analysis is bunk, is an arrogance I find hard to swallow, especially in people too young to have lived the theories they are so strongly advocating.

[Monique]

Another problem with Monique demanding statistical proof, which she is yet to acknowledge, is revealed by the fact that her words virtually drip with disdain for astrology, exposing her a priori opinion and therefore inablility to evalutate properly; afterall, she as much declared astrology bunk from the get go here (which is the general attitude of the scientific community).
Oh no, you are wrong. If you notice it was from the following post by Kerrie that I shifted gears: "again monique, you will see astrology as incorrect because you are a scientist try not applying the scientific theory to astrology because it is not a science". That is because in these words she is disproving her own belief. I have given several examples where for analogous situations scientific theory HAS been able to show correlations.

You can see if she were to set up the test, it would be to test that had no chance of proving anything but what she already believes.
I proposed a test already, you tell me how the test is biased to disprove astrology.

If there is some sort of universal influence on personality, and if it is a very general effect, then the kind of detailed statistical analysis used for biochemistry won't be directly translateable to astrology.
*sigh* why not? tell me why. What is this influence of personality, how does it influence astrology? Is it the free will you are talking about? People have a free will, so even though they are supposed to be introvert according to astrology.. they are extrovert? So if this is the case, how does astrology hold up?

Their certainty they are "right," and that anything not suited to computer analysis is bunk, is an arrogance I find hard to swallow, especially in people too young to have lived the theories they are so strongly advocating.
I never said things can be proven in a black/white fashion. If you propose though that you have a theory by which you can 'feel' a person's personality by whatever theory, don't you feel yourself that such a 'feeling' should be verifiable? And if it is not verifiable, is the 'feeling' correct?

[Monique]

Ok wait, so is it what you are saying, that personality is composed of many things. There are astrological influences, there is the free will, there is the environment. Say there are only these three components. Now, these three components come together and form a personality.

People study astrology and can deduce from the moment of birth what the personality tendencies are. This is then mixed, altered and modulated by the free will and by environmental factors.

Astrologers don't claim and are inherently inable to predict how this mixing will take place. They acknowledge that from the timepoint of mixing the theory of astrology no longer holds truth. Right? Only if they were able to factor in all the influences of free will and environmental factors will they be able to regain footing. Which, they claim cannot be done, because influences such as free will are not measurable and can thus not be corrected.

Thus, if mercury goes retrograde, it won't be possible to measure its effect on human beings. There might still be an effect, but since it is overshadowed we'll never be able to find out.

To get back at the weather, it is like a butterfly which is creating a current but will never be able to overpower a storm. If the butterfly were alone though, it would be able to set off a storm itself.

[MathematicalPhysicist]

I'm reminded of the college professor, I don't have the details so don't ask, who passed out hororscopes to his class. After they had a chance to review their horoscopes the professor asked them if they felt they were accurate and something like 90 or 95% agreed they were accurate. The professor then told them to pass the horoscope to the person behind them, because that's who's horoscope they had actually been viewing.
i saw james randi doing it in television (in tv programme called paranormal or something like that).

[Ivan Seeking]

So did Randi do his best to get an accurate representation of serious astrology, or did he use statements designed to produce this result - like the ones found in a newspaper? [This was Randi's demo that I mentioned earlier]

[Evo]

I am very open minded, I am not a scientist, but I do have common sense. As I mentioned, I looked into astrology years ago in my teens. I came to the conclusion that it didn't make sense.

Astrologers want us to believe that some distant object has the power to design our personalities and predict events. Ok, let's say that a physical object such as a planet has the incredible power to do this. We are on a planet. I would say that any effect a planet millions of miles away would have would be pretty much over ridden by Earth's properties.

I'm sorry, I just cannot believe that a ball of rock or gas millions of miles away can determine what kind of person we are or predict events in our life.
Until I see some credible evidence, I have to put this in the same category as prediction based on animal entrails - the jury is still out. :wink:

[Ivan Seeking]

First, Kerrie, I'm sorry that I don't get it. I do my best but I was trained and am naturally inclined to think in analytical, quantifiable terms.

Evo, one of my main points in this is that we shouldn't judge a claim based on alleged explanations. Maybe something about astrology actually works but for reasons completely different than believed. This sort of thing has happened before.

[Kerrie]

I am very open minded, I am not a scientist, but I do have common sense. As I mentioned, I looked into astrology years ago in my teens. I came to the conclusion that it didn't make sense.

Astrologers want us to believe that some distant object has the power to design our personalities and predict events. Ok, let's say that a physical object such as a planet has the incredible power to do this. We are on a planet. I would say that any effect a planet millions of miles away would have would be pretty much over ridden by Earth's properties.

I'm sorry, I just cannot believe that a ball of rock or gas millions of miles away can determine what kind of person we are or predict events in our life.
Until I see some credible evidence, I have to put this in the same category as prediction based on animal entrails - the jury is still out. :wink:

sorry to say evo, this perception of astrology is again incorrect. i don't think you looked into astrology as deep as you could have or you read books such as Linda Goodman's sun signs-books that destroy any understanding of how it can work. can you bear the thought that science has yet to discover how the theory of astrology works with tangible evidence? a ball of rock or gas millions of miles away does not have an effect on us, but astrology suggests that the universe is one giant organism and the geometrical aspects of these balls of gas and rock reflect our tendencies, not predict our personalities.

i say to anyone who has disbelief, (and please not everyone!) I am willing to interpret your natal chart on what an astrologist would consider a general scale, but to you might be much deeper then you are used to understanding of astrology. I need birthdate (month/day/year), time of birth and place of birth. Of course, if you decide to swap information, please realize I am intrepretating for this time and date. :smile:

[Evo]

Evo, one of my main points in this is that we shouldn't judge a claim based on alleged explanations. Maybe something about astrology actually works but for reasons completely different than believed. This sort of thing has happened before.I totally agree. I really do believe that there are many things that we have yet to understand. I'm not saying astrology isn't possible, I'm saying that I can't rationalize it.

I'm more inclined to go with the seasonal aspect than the relationship of planets. Astrology is still too much of a stretch for me. But I may be proven wrong.

[Kerrie]

Ok wait, so is it what you are saying, that personality is composed of many things. There are astrological influences, there is the free will, there is the environment. Say there are only these three components. Now, these three components come together and form a personality.

People study astrology and can deduce from the moment of birth what the personality tendencies are. This is then mixed, altered and modulated by the free will and by environmental factors.

Astrologers don't claim and are inherently inable to predict how this mixing will take place. They acknowledge that from the timepoint of mixing the theory of astrology no longer holds truth. Right? Only if they were able to factor in all the influences of free will and environmental factors will they be able to regain footing. Which, they claim cannot be done, because influences such as free will are not measurable and can thus not be corrected.

Thus, if mercury goes retrograde, it won't be possible to measure its effect on human beings. There might still be an effect, but since it is overshadowed we'll never be able to find out.

To get back at the weather, it is like a butterfly which is creating a current but will never be able to overpower a storm. If the butterfly were alone though, it would be able to set off a storm itself.

This is actually quite accurate to the practicing astrologist Monique. They do realize astrology is not the entire indicator of personality :smile: , free will and environment are huge, there is no denying this. But their claim is that there are personality tendencies that one can have (like having the gene for Down's syndrome as I do in my family, but that doesn't mean I will have a child born with Down's) doesn't necessarily mean one will be this way. What astrologers have found is that those who fit their astrological profile fairly close are those who fall into these tendencies because of their lack of awareness of them.

For me personally, I use astrology as a general tool, but not as the entire outlook on people, as I know people can choose who they ultimately are. But I find for the most part from my own personal experience and knowledge (sort of my own study and analysis I have done for the last decade) that it matches up about 65% of the time.

[Ivan Seeking]

Never assume that general news agencies supply correct information on scientific topics :wink:

Not to divert the thread, but since I was making a claim of sorts...

The news agencies are usually just quoting the experts. Granted, you have to be careful about exactly what was reported. I expected the report that I heard to surface on the web but I haven't spotted it yet. I did find this. My point is that the bottom line answers are not always so clear; even in mainstream science. A question like whether or not HDLs are good or bad, or whether we should consume as much as possible seems to me like a question that is orders of magnitude less complex than a subject like astrology.

What is HDL (high-density lipoprotein) cholesterol?
This type of cholesterol is known as the "good" cholesterol, and is a type of fat in the blood that helps to remove cholesterol from the blood, preventing the fatty buildup and formation of plaque.
You want your HDL to be as high as possible. Some people can raise HDL by:
• exercising for at least 20 minutes three times a week
• kicking the cigarette habit
• avoiding saturated fat intake
• decreasing body weight
For others, medicine may be needed. Because raising HDL is complicated, you should work with your physician on a therapeutic plan.
http://www.muschealth.com/news/heart/september2003/


…Dr. James Cleeman, coordinator of the National Cholesterol Education Program at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
HDL levels should be 40 milligrams per deciliter or higher, LDL levels should be less than 100 and triglycerides should be less than 150. Under the new guidelines, adults are advised to have their cholesterol levels checked at least every five years.

Several years ago, some research suggested that once you're past a certain age, cholesterol levels might not have to be watched so closely. But Cleeman and another expert, Dr. Daniel Lee, say more recent research refutes that notion.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/Healthology/HS_hicholesterol_030917.html

Dr. Henry Ginsberg of Columbia University says that’s why HDL is not as well understood as LDL. “If you can raise your HDL, everything we know suggests that’s good, but the bottom line proof is not there yet.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4541673/

[Les Sleeth]

Oh no, you are wrong. If you notice it was from the following post by Kerrie that I shifted gears: "again monique, you will see astrology as incorrect because you are a scientist try not applying the scientific theory to astrology because it is not a science". That is because in these words she is disproving her own belief. I have given several examples where for analogous situations scientific theory HAS been able to show correlations.

I hadn't read your opening comments, so I apologize for the remarks I made before I did a full read. You might be very open minded about things, and I might be misinterpreting your meaning. I suppose if you are someone dedicated to science and working in science, then your standards for evidence are going to be strongly oriented in that direction.

I proposed a test already, you tell me how the test is biased to disprove astrology. . . *sigh* why not? tell me why. What is this influence of personality, how does it influence astrology? Is it the free will you are talking about? People have a free will, so even though they are supposed to be introvert according to astrology.. they are extrovert? So if this is the case, how does astrology hold up?

First, I agree with you that if there really are "tendencies," then a study done properly should show us something. The problem is getting the proper test set up. I like hypnagogue's approach of, "experienced, well-regarded astrologers working in concert with experienced, well-regarded scientists to conduct a controlled, double blind, large scale statistical analysis with a methodology that is widely agreed upon by both astrologers and scientists alike to be fair and accurate. Another critical factor would be the extent to which practitioners on both sides of the table are truly unbiased and willing to let experiment determine results, rather than having an agenda to prove things one way or the other."

The thing is, no such test has been done, yet we still hear you saying, "I still find it strange that a science minded person would believe this stuff.. you really believe it?" . . . You are telling me that astrology is not measurable by statistics, thus it is false. Clear as daylight. . . . Thank you Kerrie, you have once and for all proven that Astrology is a waiste of time to study, holds no truth at all, and cannot tell anything about a persons tendencies" (and you are downright nice about it compared to what most science-minded say).

Why do you say this? To me it seems like you say such things because you are already closed to the idea.

I never said things can be proven in a black/white fashion. If you propose though that you have a theory by which you can 'feel' a person's personality by whatever theory, don't you feel yourself that such a 'feeling' should be verifiable? And if it is not verifiable, is the 'feeling' correct?

Actually, I don't think Kerrie is saying personality tendencies are only felt, but rather the interpretation of those tendencies in specific situations requires good intuition (correct me if I am wrong Kerrie).

Myself, I am pretty sure I've noticed the "tendencies" Kerrie speaks of, but I haven't a clue as to what causes them. If a study failed to show a relationship between personalities and the position of the constellations or being born at certain times of the year, I would still want to know why I've noticed what I have. I am not the slightest bit attached to astrological explanations, but I am not ready to deny what I really have observed either.

Getting back to my criticism of your position, it's that it seems knee-jerk, like most of the reactions I've seen by the empirical-minded. They want to pounce on the astrology idea and rip apart every aspect without looking at it openly to see if there might be something real buried in there. If someone is postulating an aspect of external reality can be predicted, then yes, it should be verifiable. But you have been rejecting the possibility of a tie between personality tendencies and cycles out of hand.

For me, the problem with that is what is happening to the value of "feeling." You yourself say, " if it is not verifiable, is the 'feeling' correct?" Part of the value of feeling to knowing is that it gives us clues of where to look, even in empirical investigations. Your attitude suggests (to me) that you look down on feeling/intuition, etc. Are you sure you've understood all that feeling is capable of, including types of knowledge and understanding it brings?

[Les Sleeth]

. . . Maybe something about astrology actually works but for reasons completely different than believed. This sort of thing has happened before.

Yes . . . I think that is a good, no great, principle to keep in mind for all investigations and contemplations.

[Monique]

I like hypnagogue's approach of, "experienced, well-regarded astrologers working in concert with experienced, well-regarded scientists to conduct a controlled, double blind, large scale statistical analysis with a methodology that is widely agreed upon by both astrologers and scientists alike to be fair and accurate.
In fact I proposed that first in this thread.

The thing is, no such test has been done, yet we still hear you saying, "I still find it strange that a science minded person would believe this stuff.. you really believe it?"
Because we are born with logic thinking, which is especially clear in a scientists mind. This world behaves according to laws, which can be found out. I find astrology just as strange as the Atkins diet, but if someone comes with either a good logical explanation or with proof of some kind I have no problem with changing my mind.

". . . You are telling me that astrology is not measurable by statistics, thus it is false. Clear as daylight. . . . Thank you Kerrie, you have once and for all proven that Astrology is a waiste of time to study, holds no truth at all, and cannot tell anything about a persons tendencies" (and you are downright nice about it compared to what most science-minded say).

Why do you say this? To me it seems like you say such things because you are already closed to the idea.
As I already said, it was a reaction to Kerrie's claim that I should shed the scientific method. Before that I already posted a method by which astrological effects could be distilled (showing my open mind, because I have been saying all along, if astrology holds true, you will be able to test it). If an expert in astrology says (without giving an explanation) that it cannot be tested.. then.. what..?

If I say: "everyone! I have found a gene that causes Down syndrome. uh.. sorry.. no, you can't test all the Down's people to see whether they have the gene. uh.. sorry.. no, you can't use it to see which mothers are at higher risk to giving birth to a Down's child either. In fact, you will never be able to find out whether I found the gene or not. How I found the gene myself?......"

Actually, I don't think Kerrie is saying personality tendencies are only felt, but rather the interpretation of those tendencies in specific situations requires good intuition (correct me if I am wrong Kerrie).
That is why I put it as the undefined term 'feelings'.

Getting back to my criticism of your position, it's that it seems knee-jerk, like most of the reactions I've seen by the empirical-minded. They want to pounce on the astrology idea and rip apart every aspect without looking at it openly to see if there might be something real buried in there. If someone is postulating an aspect of external reality can be predicted, then yes, it should be verifiable. But you have been rejecting the possibility of a tie between personality tendencies and cycles out of hand.
I rather feel this thread is a knee-jerk towards the scientists. I expressed my feeling that I don't know how the planets would influence a person, but I never said that because I can't understand it, it can't be true. I also mentioned the fact that bloodvessels themselves have a circadian rhythm and through my work I believe they are controlled by circadian genes, which then leads to the increased risk of aneurysm rupture in the morning.

As I said, and you also:
If someone is postulating an aspect of external reality can be predicted, then yes, it should be verifiable.

The fact that all astrologers fight for their right to say that astrology cannot be proven, I draw the conclusion that thus the theory cannot be true. Solely based on their opinion.

[Saint]

look at this, 20th March is Pisces.
So, who is right ?
http://www.astrology.ca/horoscopes/daily/pisces.html

[pelastration]

... but if someone comes with either a good logical explanation or with proof of some kind I have no problem with changing my mind.
....
The fact that all astrologers fight for their right to say that astrology cannot be proven, I draw the conclusion that thus the theory cannot be true. Solely based on their opinion.
Hi Monique.

I like you looking for concepts behind astrology.
I don't agree at all with Kerrie's no-science approach.
We should always keep looking for deeper layers of knowledge and never stay satisfied with an actual level.
But the most important is that one starts with a concept.
Please check my approach. You will find out that I point to a possible relationship of planets/milky-ways, cosmic radiation and the first cell dividing of the embryo.
You will notice that some of the posters there even mix up an embryo with a baby.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=33460&postcount=75
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=34577&postcount=83
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=34730&postcount=90
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=36238&postcount=104

Maybe these show you that indeed there are possible logic entries in this stuff.

If you provide me with your day of birth, hour and location I will send you your personalized theme made by my computer.

Dirk

[Monique]

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=34730&postcount=90
Here, this is something I can work with and is actually quite an interesting idea AND it is testable in the lab..

[pelastration]

Here, this is something I can work with and is actually quite an interesting idea AND it is testable in the lab..
Thanks Monique. Go to that Lab ... but you will need ephemerides (tables with stand of planets) or astrology software.
:wink:

[Kerrie]

Hi Monique.

I like you looking for concepts behind astrology.
I don't agree at all with Kerrie's no-science approach.
We should always keep looking for deeper layers of knowledge and never stay satisfied with an actual level.
But the most important is that one starts with a concept.
Please check my approach. You will find out that I point to a possible relationship of planets/milky-ways, cosmic radiation and the first cell dividing of the embryo.


pel...astrology is not a science, it is a tool to understand people and events in cycle with the energies that move everything from the sun to tiny cells within life...the reason i am saying it is not a science is because it is not 100% accurate but in my experience, i have found it to be 65% (or about there) true...this is with about 13 years of reading and studying, and i will admit i still have a long way to understand.

..as mentioned before, you have to factor in environment and not soley rely on astrology in pinning down a personality...this is often why astrology has been regarded as pseudoscience. the intepretations of astrology are at the intuition of the interpreter, which is a human's deepest feelings and understanding of the human being. the science part of astrology has to do with the geometry and astronomy, can we link these with human intuition to understand tendencies of people?

[Kerrie]

If you provide me with your day of birth, hour and location I will send you your personalized theme made by my computer.

Dirk


i am willing to do one too, then we can compare a human interpretation vs a computer interpretation and have someone that knows Monique very well be the judge.

[pelastration]

i am willing to do one too, then we can compare a human interpretation vs a computer interpretation and have someone that knows Monique very well be the judge.
;-)
Kerrie,
the computer one is only the start. Of course there is a need to have human interpretation. As I told you before: I do astro for more then 40 years.

[Les Sleeth]

In fact I Because we are born with logic thinking, which is especially clear in a scientists mind. This world behaves according to laws, which can be found out. I find astrology just as strange as the Atkins diet, but if someone comes with either a good logical explanation or with proof of some kind I have no problem with changing my mind.

We probably agree more than we disagree. Thirty-five years ago I was a dedicated debunker, and astrology was a favorite idea to go after. One day I found out that by some coincidence an unsually large percentage of my family were born under the sign of Taurus. Then I married one, and had employees who were. Because I'd been around it so much, when I found out about some of the predicted personality traits of a Taurus, I saw immediately the generalities of the group I'd known.

Now, I had to admit I saw them even though I'd put astrology down for decades. Being curious, I started looking to see if there were general personality traits under other signs, and I believe I saw it some there too. I do not see them well, but I haven't put very much effort into studying astrology either.

Something I do not see at all is using astrology to make predictions, whether it's for personalities or for world events. That's because what I've seen as a "tendency" seems so flexible it is easily molded by one's environment and individual will, or by the momentum of physical reality. So with the information I have now, I don't buy anything about astrology other than there seems to be very general tendencies, or personality "leanings," in people born at certain times of the year. What does that have to do with feeling? More below . . .

In fact IAs I already said, it was a reaction to Kerrie's claim that I should shed the scientific method. Before that I already posted a method by which astrological effects could be distilled (showing my open mind, because I have been saying all along, if astrology holds true, you will be able to test it). If an expert in astrology says (without giving an explanation) that it cannot be tested.. then.. what..?

I don't want to put words in Kerrie's mouth, but I felt I knew what she meant and it wasn't that you should shed the scientific method. I'll imagine that I answered you as Kerrie did, and tell you what I would mean by it.

I think to get what's going on you have to take into account two things. The first is that there hasn't been the sort of studies done which both scientists and competent astrologers can agree properly reflect what astrology is or is not capable of. So how can I answer your demand for a convincing study? Am I going to go out and conduct it myself? Of course not, which brings us to the second thing, which is how to answer you when you want to know why ". . . a science minded person would believe this stuff. . ."

I am a science-minded person, but I since I cannot cite studies that haven't been done, all I have left is what has convinced me. In my case, it is the subtle, very general tendencies I've noticed. Those tendencies are not very apparent, they are often buried beneath a lot of conditioning and obscured by the activity that characterizes most people's lives. So without a battery of tests to put someone through, what I rely on is my intuition. I use it to try to "feel" how (or if) the general tendency has influenced someone.

If you demand scientific proof of the effectiveness of my intuition, I will answer that intuition is not something that reveals itself under empirical investigation. You don't think with intuition, you feel with it. So when you say . . .

The fact that all astrologers fight for their right to say that astrology cannot be proven, I draw the conclusion that thus the theory cannot be true. Solely based on their opinion.

. . . it seems unfair.

I rather feel this thread is a knee-jerk towards the scientists. I expressed my feeling that I don't know how the planets would influence a person, but I never said that because I can't understand it, it can't be true. I also mentioned the fact that bloodvessels themselves have a circadian rhythm and through my work I believe they are controlled by circadian genes, which then leads to the increased risk of aneurysm rupture in the morning.

I don't know about this whole thread, but I might be guilty of over-reacting. For that I apologize again.

My short fuse is because since I've participated here at PF, I have run into what I'll call the "science critique" many times. The science critique is to evaluate empirically any and everything you can think of or imagine. Built into the science critique is an assumption that if something can't be empirically demonstrated, then it isn't worth consideration. I believe you have given us a bit of that attitude in this thread.

The purely empirical view might be right, but my experience with both myself and living convinces me that while empirical thinking is effective in its own realm, it doesn't work for everything. In fact, I find it doesn't work at all for some very important things. For one thing, if I were to chose to be exclusively empirical, there is a way of knowing I'd have to do without.

What is that "way of knowing?" It is to feel, to be sensitive with all of one's being, and then see what you pick up on. By "feeling" I'm not talking about how hormones can affect one's sensitivity to create emotions, but rather a neutral kind of sensitivity. I like this sort of sensitivity because not only do I detect pretty subtle stuff, but that heightened sensitivity allows me to experience things more deeply and so enhances my overall enjoyment of life.

One of my objections to the science critique is that it seems to be becoming a philosophy that's preached to the "ignorant masses." With the powerful status science has attained in society, the science critique is becoming more and more prevalent in the various media adults and children are exposed to. The philosophy of the science critique acts a filter, filtering out anything which isn't empirically verifiable. Here at PF I've seen it almost as a sneering, condescending attitude the science-critiquing mind gives off as it discounts everything non-empirical. I don't think you were like that, but part of my reaction to what you've said is the little bit of it which did seem that way.

Another of my objections is the physicalism that is resulting from the science critique. Since God, the soul, life, consciousness and such are all things which must be felt to know, the science critique says those things are contraindicated by research.

So you might say I am somewhat of a champion for the cause of sensitivity and feeling, for not allowing our infatuation with our brain's computing skills to turn us into robots who go around doing nothing but analyzing stuff, and for encouraging a view of the being human as both feeling and rationality.

[Monique]

pel...astrology is not a science, it is a tool to understand people and events in cycle with the energies that move everything from the sun to tiny cells within life...the reason i am saying it is not a science is because it is not 100% accurate but in my experience, i have found it to be 65% (or about there) true...this is with about 13 years of reading and studying, and i will admit i still have a long way to understand.
Kerrie, if you were to make a random judgement on a person.. how high would you estimate the change that the judgement is accurate? Would it be lower than 65%? Or would it be 65%?

What makes you think that science has to be 100% accurate? The only reason that something cannot be predicted with full certainty, is because you don't know all the factors involved. The EXACT same thing is dealt with everyday in science.

The disease I studied only manifests itself late in life, on average around the age of 49. Not every person who should get the disease, get it though.. it is called a low penetrance. Also, not every person who gets the disease gets diagnosed. Also, there are many factors that influence the manifestation of the disease, things like barometric pressure, binge drinking, age, gender. You can see it is very complex. To complicate the matter, the inheritance is not mendelian, that means there is more than one gene involved. Even though that, we are able to extract information from these people and find the general location on the genome that is involved in increasing the risk of these people for developing the disease.

I really don't understand what you mean when you say astrology is not a science, people have been developing the theory for 5000 years.. you'd think they came up with some substance in that time..

Even if the success rate is 65%, if it is higher than the random chance.. you have got something that can be studied, and should be.

[Kerrie]

"I really don't understand what you mean when you say astrology is not a science, people have been developing the theory for 5000 years.. you'd think they came up with some substance in that time.."

Many good books have been written on the subject, and there is now a college in Seattle that offers 4 year degrees on astrology. A favorite book of mine that I highly recommend is by Kevin Burk, who has obtained a level IV NCGR certificatication in astrological counseling called Understanding the Birth Chart. This book is a text book in studying for these certificates which in the astrological community are highly regarded so you can be assured that they are not published by a fly-by-night New Age publisher. I think there has been a lot of damage done to the reputation of astrology by those interested in using it to predict the future as oppossed to using it as a tool to understand humanity.

"Even if the success rate is 65%, if it is higher than the random chance.. you have got something that can be studied, and should be."

I agree, however it is my opinion that astrology is not given the chance it deserves because of the reputation it has undeservedly. There was some extensive studies that I found were done by a French scientist and I highly encourage you to read this link about the Mars effect (planet of action/energy) and it's powerful placement in the athlete's chart. Perhaps this may give you the proof you are seeking?

http://aquamoonlight.uku.co.uk/gauquelin.html

I am interested to know what you think.

Pel..."the computer one is only the start. Of course there is a need to have human interpretation. As I told you before: I do astro for more then 40 years."

I haven't completely delved into your posts I apologize, time doesn't lend itself generously to me these days. I think the need to have a human interpretation is highly important because of the need for judgement and complex understanding. Do you have a certificate or degree after all these years of studying? It is my goal someday to begin earning my NCGR certificates when I have the time and money.

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay, this must be what I heard about.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-03-28-medical-edit_x.htm

sorry again, don't mean to interrupt..tip toes out of the room...

[Les Sleeth]

..tip toes out of the room...

Right behind you . . .

[skywise]

Wait Wait! Before everyone takes off, I was hoping someone better informed about these things could shed some light for me as to wether or not there is anything to this..

"I must call the reader's attention to the well-known correspondence between the sun-spot periods and the mortality curve. The connecting link appears to be the disturbances of the earth's magnetic field, which in their turn are due to fluctuations in the proton radiation from the sun. These fluctuations also have an influence on "radio weather" by disturbing the ionosphere that reflects the radio waves. Investigation of these disturbances seems to indicate that the conjunctions, oppositions, and quartile aspects of the planets play a considerable part in increasing the proton radiation and thus causing electromagnetic storms. On the other hand the astrologically favourable trine and sextile aspects have been reported to produce uniform radio weather." -Carl Jung


Do the the planets affect radio waves differently according to their position??

[Monique]

Wouldn't the radiowaves from you phone/radio/television be more influentional?

[Kerrie]

monique, what do you think of the challenge i proposed of interpreting your chart and having a 3rd party that knows you well to make the judgement call of how close the chart is to your personality?

[pelastration]

... now a college in Seattle that offers 4 year degrees on astrology. A favorite book of mine that I highly recommend is by Kevin Burk, who has obtained a level IV NCGR certificatication in astrological counseling called Understanding the Birth Chart. This book is a text book in studying for these certificates which in the astrological community are highly regarded so you can be assured that they are not published by a fly-by-night New Age publisher.

....
Pel..."the computer one is only the start. Of course there is a need to have human interpretation. As I told you before: I do astro for more then 40 years."

I haven't completely delved into your posts I apologize, time doesn't lend itself generously to me these days. I think the need to have a human interpretation is highly important because of the need for judgement and complex understanding. Do you have a certificate or degree after all these years of studying? It is my goal someday to begin earning my NCGR certificates when I have the time and money.
No in Europe we don't have something like that college in Seattle. What we have is a number of private groups teached by well-known or experienced astrologers. But no official certificates. I am not particular interested in certificates, but it can be useful for the new generations of astrologers. It was never my intention to make it my profession. I started when I was 14, and made thousands of themes. I judged astro to give other information that otherwise was not available, not a systeem that could give the only truth. It's an interesting analytic tool. It shows a number of hidden patterns and dynamics. Astro indicates personal positive and negative area's or cycles which may be repetitive. Knowing them can help us to understand what happens to us and how we can better control our personal system and energy.

Maybe I should add here for people new in astro that there are several types of horoscopes:
(1)Radix horoscope (Birthdate) which is like the type of vehicle that you start with,
(2)The progression horoscope showing your progression or evolution in your life (or the location of your vehicle on it's road, topology of the area) and
(3) the Transit horoscope (the influences of the actual planet positions on your vehicle, cfr. the quality of the road, weather on that location, etc).
Comparing partners and lovers in a combined horoscope: The synastic horoscope.

But as I said before, I want to know why, how, if, can it ... . And my experience is that it is all related to spacetime geometry and non-local communication. The steps between: cosmic radiation influencing the first basic cell-dividings + the moment of birth = moment of the first independent living of the born.

[Monique]

monique, what do you think of the challenge i proposed of interpreting your chart and having a 3rd party that knows you well to make the judgement call of how close the chart is to your personality?
That would be fine by me.. but why have a 3rd party interpret my personality and you directly giving the astrological examination :confused:

Since you know me rather well through these forums, you are not objective in your opinion and are biased in reading the charts in a manner that applies to me. And I don't think that a 3rd party would know my true personality as well as I would myself..

But if you don't think it would be a waste of time, I'd be interested to find out :)

[Ivan Seeking]

How are you to gauge your own objectivity?

[Monique]

I think I know myself pretty well.. how would I be not objective?

[Ivan Seeking]

I think I know myself pretty well.. how would I be not objective?

It just seems like a highly subjective approach. Wouldn't a sophisticated personality test be a better reference?

[Kerrie]

monique, i think ivan has a point...i want to prove how astrology works which would mean me being as objective as possible, and no, i don't know you very well through these forums as far as your deeper personality goes, only the outside stuff which astrology does not point out...i think it is much more difficult for people to be objective of themselves, and that is why i suggested someone who knows you personally to assess the human generated birth chart.

[pelastration]

Before I suggested that cosmic ray's may be shielded by planets and/or that that there will be Einstein lens effects. Changes in X-rays may influence the starting conditions of cell dividing and also the dividing conditions during the growth of the embryo (three basic layers: endoderm, ectoderm and mesoderm).

On next link you can see how that happens. Here it is a rare event but this happens all the time with our planets.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/04_releases/press_040504.html

Quote: "A rare celestial event was captured by NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory as Titan -- Saturn's largest moon and the only moon in the Solar System with a thick atmosphere -- crossed in front of the X-ray bright Crab Nebula. The X-ray shadow cast by Titan allowed astronomers to make the first X-ray measurement of the extent of its atmosphere.

On January 5, 2003, Titan transited the Crab Nebula, the remnant of a supernova explosion that was observed to occur in the year 1054. Although Saturn and Titan pass within a few degrees of the Crab Nebula every 30 years, they rarely pass directly in front of it.

"This may have been the first transit of the Crab Nebula by Titan since the birth of the Crab Nebula," said Koji Mori of Pennsylvania State University in University Park, and lead author on an Astrophysical Journal paper describing these results. "The next similar conjunction will take place in the year 2267, so this was truly a once in a lifetime event."

[MagneticEnergies]

Astrology has been a hobbie of mine for 4 years now....it is somethign that i believe is a guideline for human thought and emotions...u cant judge a book by its cover but if u read the back u have an insight as to what it may offer you... also the goal for any human is self realization.. astrology has opened me up to myself..if u are skeptical u ought to read up on your signs and see if u can relate...if not then maybe it isnt meant for u..ive tried convincing people about its legitimacy,but some people are to tarnished by our "logical" society...its not about predicting the future..its about knowing thyself and others

[i_wish_i_was_smart]

according to astrology, this year is my year the year of the VIRGO

[Moonbear]

Did anyone ever answer the original question here? There's about a three day "gray area" called a "cusp" at the beginning and end of each sign's month. People born in those few days are supposed to have some characteristics of both signs. I'm born right between Libra and Scorpio, which means I get to like both red and blue :-) It's all good entertainment. Sometimes when I'm having a bad day, I go read my horoscope for a pick-me-up...they always say things will be better than they are.

[pelastration]

Did anyone ever answer the original question here? There's about a three day "gray area" called a "cusp" at the beginning and end of each sign's month. People born in those few days are supposed to have some characteristics of both signs. I'm born right between Libra and Scorpio, which means I get to like both red and blue :-)

You can check the ephemerides on this site: http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/jekyll/75/fm.html
If I remember well the changes are due the changes in the angle of the earth axis rotation. An identical interposition (of all 10 "planets") takes about 16,000 years.

[Kerrie]

Did anyone ever answer the original question here? There's about a three day "gray area" called a "cusp" at the beginning and end of each sign's month. People born in those few days are supposed to have some characteristics of both signs. I'm born right between Libra and Scorpio, which means I get to like both red and blue :-) It's all good entertainment. Sometimes when I'm having a bad day, I go read my horoscope for a pick-me-up...they always say things will be better than they are.

yes moonbear, i answered saint his question in a private message. because he is on the opposite side of the world as i am, determining his "sun sign" was a little more of a challenge then i am used to. in order for me to have calculated where the ecliptic of the earth was, i had to ask him for the time and place of birth as well as the date. interesting to note, many do not realize all of the facts that astrology is based on---the personal interpretation is what is so subjective.

[MagneticEnergies]

the bipolar disorder.....someone needs to conduct a survey on the percentages of people that have been diagnosed with this "disorder" with their zodiacs on a cusp...i looked into it a little cause me myself am a cancer/gemini and i have this "disorder"..my brother is a capricorn/sagittarius and he to is bi polar...kurt kobain was a picses/aquarius and was also diagnosed...... the term bipolar says a lot right there..having a mix of positive and negative energy..causing a turmoil of emotion and thought...im just curious as to what the results would yield...if anyone has any info let me know..thanx

[pelastration]

the bipolar disorder.....someone needs to conduct a survey on the percentages of people that have been diagnosed with this "disorder" with their zodiacs on a cusp...i looked into it a little cause me myself am a cancer/gemini and i have this "disorder"..my brother is a capricorn/sagittarius and he to is bi polar...kurt kobain was a picses/aquarius and was also diagnosed...... the term bipolar says a lot right there..having a mix of positive and negative energy..causing a turmoil of emotion and thought...im just curious as to what the results would yield...if anyone has any info let me know..thanx
I don't think bipolar disorder is related to these cusps.
The basic aspects of the Moon will play an essential role in the radix horoscope (birth) in relation to bipolar disorder.
The transits (actual planets) will activate them shortly, and also the aspects in progression over a longer time.

[Ivan Seeking]

Pisces (Feb. 19 - March 20): Governed by Neptune and symbolized by the fish. Compassionate, introspective, artistic. Often dreamy and impractical. May be prone to schizophrenia, epilepsy or bipolar disorder.

It may sound like some kind of new, madcap astrology, but a number of scientists are becoming convinced that our birth month may predispose us to particular diseases later in life. [continued]

http://www.indystar.com/articles/8/171836-6908-010.html

[Kerrie]

thanks for the link ivan :smile: this correlates with true astrology's theme-we are all apart of the universe cycling around one another, where many today try so hard to separate "us" from our environment...

[Ivan Seeking]

What amazes me are the number of attacks on Astrology that I have heard based on the notion that no relationship between birth month, health, state of mind, or the personalilty of a person. Considering that if only now are we learning that something as definitive as bipolar disorder may be related to one's DOB, this tells me that many attacks on this subject are premature and misguided; at best. If this report is correct then obviously we can't yet know if Astrology works. Any "proof" based attacks against astrology are either incorrect, or pseudoscience.

Note that I do not "believe" in Astrology.

[The Bob]

I did my own tests a while ago based on DOB. I thought that people born later were generally less intelligent unless in a very stable and guidable family enviroment. Also attached and unattached earlobes was another thing I noticed was linked. So DOBs do make a difference in my opinion. I was born 'late' and I have unattached earlobes but I am still quiet intelligent. However I have always struggled in English lessons and have my moments of stupidity. My friend, however, was born in October (btw, I am talking an acedemic year) and he has no problem in an subject. His earlobes are attached. Just some interesting points I found about people's DOBs. It isn't always true but I have found it to be in about 75% of people at my school.

The Bob (2004 ©)

P.S. I apologise if this has wondered into the theory side of things but really it is my opinion with a little evidence, not a theory.

[Moonbear]

DOB and school performance is more often related to one's maturity for their grade level. If you're born near the end of the year cut-off for enrollment in school, you can be almost a year younger than some of your classmates. I'm an October birthday and very close to the cut-off used way back when I entered Kindergarten (at the time, it was Nov 1). At that time, they tested children that close to the cut-off to determine if they were mature enough to enter that year's class, or wait a year to start school. I guess I passed the test. I was always the youngest kid in the class, though it really didn't hurt me much I suppose. A kid down the block from me had a birthday very close to mine and was recommended to start a year later.

As for the other topic brought up of month of birth relating to disease risk, the studies are far too inconsistent in what they find. I can find two papers, published within the same year, that will say there is a correlation between birth month and breast cancer risk, and then one says they found a peak in October, and the other in May. And when you look at the actual data, it's all over the place! Believe me, I was hoping there was a correlation, so was disappointed to see such inconsistent results (the reasons I was hoping for a correlation are a whole different subject, so I won't go into it here).