Is there scientific evidence to support the claims of astrology?

[extreme_machinations]

I AM FROM INDIA ,AS U MIGHT KNOW ASTROLOGY HAS ITS ROOTS IN INDIA , PEOPLE HERE ARE CRAZY ABOUT ASTROLOGY ND ANYTHING RELATED TO IT .
PEOPLE HERE MAKE MONEY BY PASSING RANDOM STATEMENTS WHICH ARE THEN TREATED AS PROPHECIES BY THE GULLIBLE FOLK OVER HERE .
NOW I KNOW ABOUT HOW ASTROLOGY DOES NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ,THE GRAVITATIONAL FORCES PRODUCED BY NEARBY OBJECTS WHICH IS GREATER THAN THE EFFECT OF NEARBY PLANETS AND HOW PEOPLE TEND TO ACT IN A WAY TO MAKE THE PROPHECIES COME TRUE ,BUT THESE ARGUMENTS ARE QUITE COMMONPLACE NOW .
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE TO PROVE THAT ASTROLOGY IS NOT A SCIENCE BASED ON 8000 YEARS OF DATABASE AS claimed by astrologers here .
i want sometin that can shut these people upp .
PLEASE HELP !

 

[selfAdjoint]

How accurate do the Indian astrologers claim their predictions to be? Oresme in the 14th century provided a method to confound astrologers of the "perfectly accurate" school.

It is a mathematical fact that if you have n independent cycles, as it were the circling of the planets through the zodiac, then if the periods of these cycles are linearly independent over the integers (which I will explain in a moment) then no aspect configuration will ever exactly recur, so 2000 or 10,000 years of history won't provide a prior case of a given aspect upon which to base prediction. On the other hand, if these cycles are NOT linearly independent over the integers, then only a finite number of aspects will ever occur, which cannot possibly account for all the continuously varying changes in the world.

"Linearly independent" means that no linear combination (sum of multiples, including possible negative multiples) of the periods comes out to zero. Or put in terms of positive numbers, no sum of multiples of some of the periods equals any sum of multiples of other periods.

This is known as Tschebyshev's theorem in Diaphantine approximation, proved in the 19th century, but Nicole Oresme proved the simplest case, n=2, in the 14th century.

 

[HallsofIvy]

One thing that has always puzzled me: If everything astrologers say about the stars affecting our lives were true, how would they know what those influences are. Every "astrologer" (or believer in astrology) that I have asked that of just refers to books written by others. How did those others know?

Of course, scientifically, one would answer such a question by doing research- perhaps look at many people who have (approximately at least) the same sign configurations and see what they have in common. That sort of research has been done, repeatedly, both by astrologers and debunkers- the result has consistently been "null"- they have nothing particular in common.

There was one famous research done the other way. An early twentieth century astrologer (he was Adolf Hitler's astrologer- but try not to let that prejudice you) looked at the star positions for a large number of people he considered "artistic" to see what they all had in common. He finally came to the conclusion, and published, that they all had Uranus within a 10 degree range!

Now, Uranus is not visible with the naked eye and not one of the planets normally used in astrology, but doesn't that prove that the planets and stars can influence humans in specific ways? No, it doesn't. This is often taught as an example of why a "control group" is necessary. Had he also looked at people who were not "artistic", he would have found Uranus in that same area! He used only living people who were old enough to have shown themselves artistic- all of his subjects were born with a period of about 30 years. Uranus's period is so large that that constitute about a 10 degree section of its orbit!

 

[selfAdjoint]

In the 1940s and 50s a number of French astrology entusiasts worked with the birth announcements of people mentioned in sports and other catalogs to try to determine if their "birth signs" supported their later type of eminence. French birth announcements include the time of birth to the minute. Jung actualy worked with a group doing this in about 1946. Later a well known publisher of this research was named (except for my spelling uncertainty) Gauquellin. He claimed there was evidence for , as I recall it, "Mars in the ascendant" for notable athletes. The US skeptic's organization CSICOP took on this research and claimed to debunk it but turned out to have calculated the astronomical probabilities wrong and wound up with egg all over their faces. The French research was nevertheless not determinative, since the catalogs were spotty and subject to possibly slanting choice.

 

[Kerrie]

One of my favorite topics to discuss with skeptics...astrology is much like pschology-not an exact science, but a guiding factor into understanding what moves human beings to be who they are and make the choices they do. I think skeptics don't realize astrology is not a science, let alone exact, but a tool. Astrology is a study of cycles between the celestial matter and human matter-essentially all the same matter in different forms.

For four years I have debated this topic, here AGAIN is a link on the topic we discussed extensively...perhaps I should keep a link in a signature... The Physics of Astrology-PF

 

[loseyourname]

The title of this thread presents a false dichotomy, by the way. Not every claim is either scientific or bullsh*t.

 

[LeonhardEuler]

One of my favorite topics to discuss with skeptics...astrology is much like pschology-not an exact science, but a guiding factor into understanding what moves human beings to be who they are and make the choices they do. I think skeptics don't realize astrology is not a science, let alone exact, but a tool. Astrology is a study of cycles between the celestial matter and human matter-essentially all the same matter in different forms.

For four years I have debated this topic, here AGAIN is a link on the topic we discussed extensively...perhaps I should keep a link in a signature... The Physics of Astrology-PF

From what I've read of this you seem to be saying that astrology is not a science, and therefore should not be put to the same standards of rigor as a scientific fact. But think about what it means for something to be scientific. It simply means that it can be demonstrated or falsified by experiment. If astrology is not scientific, then it is useless. I do not mean to say that anything which is not scientific is useless, but that this makes astrology in particular is useless because it is supposed to make predictions. Astrology makes truth claims which can be tested by experiment. If you do not expect these claims to be verified in experiments, then what exactly are we to make of these claims? You say it should be taken as a guide and not as fact. I would take a weather forcast as a guide and not as a fact because data show that given certain previous measurements of temperature, pressure, etc. it will be more or less likely to rain at some point in the future. But if it can not even be demonstrated that the predictions of astrology are more likely to be true of those it claims a given prediction to be true for more than simmilar people it doesn't claim the prediction to be true for, then what use is it? Why should I believe it?

I remember reading a quote about astrology. I don't remember who wrote it or exactly what it said, but let me put the basic idea down: Don't you think its incredibly egotistical for a man to look at the motions of planets and the arrangement of stars and think that all of these things happen to predict the most trivial events of his life? It would be like a worm looking at the rise and fall of nations and thinking that all of this happens to predict whether another worm will fall in love with him or something. It's absurd, there is no reason to believe it is true.

 

[Kerrie]

From what I've read of this you seem to be saying that astrology is not a science, and therefore should not be put to the same standards of rigor as a scientific fact. But think about what it means for something to be scientific. It simply means that it can be demonstrated or falsified by experiment. If astrology is not scientific, then it is useless.

So psychology can also then be considered useless?

I do not mean to say that anything which is not scientific is useless, but that this makes astrology in particular is useless because it is supposed to make predictions. Astrology makes truth claims which can be tested by experiment.

Actually, if you had taken some time to really study what astrology is, you would find this is NOT what it is. It's about studying people and the relation of their strengths/weaknesses to the geometrical positions of the planets. Those who use astrology to predict their future certainly may feel they are not in control of their choices and destiny. Astrology does not claim this whatsoever, and if it does, then your sources are very misinformed.

I would take a weather forcast as a guide and not as a fact because data show that given certain previous measurements of temperature, pressure, etc. it will be more or less likely to rain at some point in the future.

Weather forecasts are a good comparison to astrology, tendencies based on past patterns are what help us forecast what could happen or come to be.

It's absurd, there is no reason to believe it is true.

So please, tell me what sources you have to make you believe this, and have you done any objective research on your own (like understanding how it works)? Based on what you have said in your post, it would seem to me you have only subscribed to the silly newspaper sun sign horoscopes, and really have no idea how much math/geometry and human psychology is involved. This is the major problem I see with the skeptics-they take what they think is astrology at face value, and don't learn what exactly it entails. To learn how it works actually takes a lot longer time then most realize. So, instead of beginning a debate, I suggest reading my link I posted. I like to use that link as a reference because instead of beating down the topic because of what preconceptions were formed, members actually wanted to understand what and why it is referred to as the "oldest" science.

 

[SGT]

The Bad Astronomer answers all your questions.

 

[LeonhardEuler]

So psychology can also then be considered useless?

Psychology is based on experimental evidence and makes predictions that can be and are validated by experiment. This is the only reason to believe it.

You say that astrology is about people studying their strengths and weaknesses based on the geometrical positions of the planets. What evidence is there that there is any relation at all? I don't have to provide evidence that there isn't a relation. It is a baseless claim and the default position is skepticism. Weather forecasts are not a good comparison to astrology. One is based on actual empirical statistical correlations between observable measurements and the other is not. I do not have to study astrology to not believe it any more than I have to learn ancient Greek and learn every little detail of Greek mythology to conclude that it is very unlikely that the Greek gods exist. Greek mythology makes baseless claims and I have no reason to give them any credibility unless I am presented with actual facts to substantiate these claims. I treat astrology the same way. Since there is no reason to believe that some ball of rock or gas hundreds of millions of miles away is controling people's personalities, I don't believe it.

 

[Kerrie]

Psychology is based on experimental evidence and makes predictions that can be and are validated by experiment. This is the only reason to believe it.

You say that astrology is about people studying their strengths and weaknesses based on the geometrical positions of the planets. What evidence is there that there is any relation at all? I don't have to provide evidence that there isn't a relation. It is a baseless claim and the default position is skepticism. Weather forecasts are not a good comparison to astrology. One is based on actual empirical statistical correlations between observable measurements and the other is not. I do not have to study astrology to not believe it any more than I have to learn ancient Greek and learn every little detail of Greek mythology to conclude that it is very unlikely that the Greek gods exist. Greek mythology makes baseless claims and I have no reason to give them any credibility unless I am presented with actual facts to substantiate these claims. I treat astrology the same way. Since there is no reason to believe that some ball of rock or gas hundreds of millions of miles away is controling people's personalities, I don't believe it.

you still didn't read the link, i won't bother replying to you any longer since you have made the choice not to read the link.

 

[SGT]

So please, tell me what sources you have to make you believe this, and have you done any objective research on your own (like understanding how it works)? Based on what you have said in your post, it would seem to me you have only subscribed to the silly newspaper sun sign horoscopes, and really have no idea how much math/geometry and human psychology is involved. This is the major problem I see with the skeptics-they take what they think is astrology at face value, and don't learn what exactly it entails. To learn how it works actually takes a lot longer time then most realize. So, instead of beginning a debate, I suggest reading my link I posted. I like to use that link as a reference because instead of beating down the topic because of what preconceptions were formed, members actually wanted to understand what and why it is referred to as the "oldest" science.

I have followed part of your link. particularly I read all your posts. You challenge LeonhardEuler to research astrology in order to understand how it works. Since you have being studying it for 12 years, you certainly understand it. Could you please explain it to us. I have not 12 years at my disposition to study it and even if I had, it would be too late to post on this thread.

 

[LeonhardEuler]

I read the beginning of the link, but forgive me for not reading all 106 posts. I just don't think the details of astrology are relevant to its validity any more than knowing how many brothers Athena had is relevant to the valididty of Greek mythology. If you think some details of it will make it seem more reasonable, though, I would like to know them. For now, though, I believe that astrology is a dangerous myth that thrives on people's poor logic. I like this example from the bad astronomy link:

Still having doubts? My friend and master skeptic James Randi performs a wonderful demo of how easily people are fooled by astrology. He went into a classroom, posing as an astrologer, and cast horoscopes for all the students. He had them read and rate the accuracy, and they almost overwhelmingly rated the horoscopes as accurate. The kicker? He had them pass around the horoscopes, and the students saw that every horoscope was exactly the same. It was worded vaguely enough that nearly everyone in the room thought they were being well-described. The horoscopes were so vague they matched nearly everyone, and so their predictive power was meaningless. It was all in the students' heads

 

[Kerrie]

I have followed part of your link. particularly I read all your posts. You challenge LeonhardEuler to research astrology in order to understand how it works. Since you have being studying it for 12 years, you certainly understand it. Could you please explain it to us. I have not 12 years at my disposition to study it and even if I had, it would be too late to post on this thread.

SGT, I appreciate your openness...it is refresing


the link is a PF thread we had, and i would just be repeating what it says. as i mentioned before, many questions were asked about how it works in that thread and i am afraid of being redundant.

the main points are:
astrology does not claim to be a science, does not predict and IS subjective. it is based on a theory that says "as above, so below, as within so without, as the soul, so the universe". basically stating that human life and all matter are all connected in one form or another, but still respects the fact that we are beings with a given amount of free will to make our choices. a natal chart is a picture of the aspects of the planets in relation to earth-for me personally, i typically look at the aspects and positions of the sun, mercury, venus, mars, jupiter, saturn, and especially the moon. hardcore astrologists will use EVERY planet and major planetoid, but i find they don't point out major personality tendencies.

once i have looked at where and what those objects are, i study that individual to see if there are strong tendencies. for example, i have found that those with the moon in leo when they are born TEND to be extremely stubborn in their ways, and can "scare" those when their anger is ignited. i have known about 5 people with this placement, and had the same response by all of them. of course, where the moon is in the chart has an impact of what can ignite their emotions too.

with this in mind, people who are aware that they have this tendency might keep it under control. when they make choices-using this example-to not express their anger to frighten others, they are choosing, or using "free will" to overcome this tendency. when a person consults a certified astrologist, the astrologist will point out personality habits and help that seeker to be aware of those habits.

so really, to say astrology predicts is absolutely silly because it doesn't predict anything except possible personality strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Kerrie]

I read the beginning of the link, but forgive me for not reading all 106 posts. I just don't think the details of astrology are relevant to its validity any more than knowing how many brothers Athena had is relevant to the valididty of Greek mythology. If you think some details of it will make it seem more reasonable, though, I would like to know them. For now, though, I believe that astrology is a dangerous myth that thrives on people's poor logic. I like this example from the bad astronomy link:

well then, i guess i am done discussing it with you. a scientist who wants an objective view of the subject would be open to reading both sides, not just what they want to believe. plain and simple, you are not being objective about it.

 

[LeonhardEuler]

Astrology does predict. You suggest that people "with the moon in leo when they are born TEND to be extremely stubborn in their ways". This is a prediction. You could ask people's friend's whether they are stubborn or not. You could do this with a big group of people in this category and a big group of people not in this category (making sure that the people you ask don't know what you're looking for) and see if there is a statistically significant difference. If there is, then this suggests the valididty of the claim. If there is not, then there is good reason to disbelieve it. Beware of beleiving claims based on anecdotal evidence.

 

[LeonhardEuler]

well then, i guess i am done discussing it with you. a scientist who wants an objective view of the subject would be open to reading both sides, not just what they want to believe. plain and simple, you are not being objective about it.

I am open to reading both sides, but I only want to read what is relevant. Like I said, I don't believe the details are relevant until the fundamental epistomological question is answered: How do you know? What is this based on? Why should I believe it? Until this is answered I would be wasting my time learing details derived from principles I have no reason to accept. The notion that the postion of a ball of rock in outer space at the moment you exit the womb determines your personality seems crazy to me and I won't believe it without evidence.
I am open to hearing what you think is relevant, and I hope you don't interpret this as me being grumpy, but I do have a strong personal dislike for astrology because of all the poor people who give away money believing this stuff and because of the fuzzy logic it encourages.

 

[Kerrie]

I do have a strong personal dislike for astrology because of all the poor people who give away money believing this stuff and because of the fuzzy logic it encourages.

so do i, please don't consider my 12 years of studying anything of making money off of people-i would consider it insulting.

TEND means to be inclined to, not necessarily a guarantee of what is or will be. a lot of people operate on "auto-pilot" thus fall into weak tendencies when they don't excersise their awareness of themselves.

 

[SGT]

SGT, I appreciate your openness...it is refresing


the link is a PF thread we had, and i would just be repeating what it says. as i mentioned before, many questions were asked about how it works in that thread and i am afraid of being redundant.

the main points are:
astrology does not claim to be a science, does not predict and IS subjective. it is based on a theory that says "as above, so below, as within so without, as the soul, so the universe". basically stating that human life and all matter are all connected in one form or another, but still respects the fact that we are beings with a given amount of free will to make our choices. a natal chart is a picture of the aspects of the planets in relation to earth-for me personally, i typically look at the aspects and positions of the sun, mercury, venus, mars, jupiter, saturn, and especially the moon. hardcore astrologists will use EVERY planet and major planetoid, but i find they don't point out major personality tendencies.

once i have looked at where and what those objects are, i study that individual to see if there are strong tendencies. for example, i have found that those with the moon in leo when they are born TEND to be extremely stubborn in their ways, and can "scare" those when their anger is ignited. i have known about 5 people with this placement, and had the same response by all of them. of course, where the moon is in the chart has an impact of what can ignite their emotions too.

with this in mind, people who are aware that they have this tendency might keep it under control. when they make choices-using this example-to not express their anger to frighten others, they are choosing, or using "free will" to overcome this tendency. when a person consults a certified astrologist, the astrologist will point out personality habits and help that seeker to be aware of those habits.

so really, to say astrology predicts is absolutely silly because it doesn't predict anything except possible personality strengths and weaknesses.

Well, you say that it works, not how it works. Do you have any idea about the how? It is certainly not gravity or electromagnetism, since it is independent of distance. Do you have any idea of which physical interaction would be behind astrology?
Why do you discard the influences of Uranus and Neptune? Is it because Babylonians didn't know those planets? Is it because they are too distant? If distance is involved, why do very distant constellations have any influence?

 

[Kerrie]

Well, you say that it works, not how it works. Do you have any idea about the how? It is certainly not gravity or electromagnetism, since it is independent of distance. Do you have any idea of which physical interaction would be behind astrology?
Why do you discard the influences of Uranus and Neptune? Is it because Babylonians didn't know those planets? Is it because they are too distant? If distance is involved, why do very distant constellations have any influence?

that's the big mystery that no one knows-what moves the planets in their cycles? what moves people in their cycles? it is certainly a force of somekind. perhaps it is a force we have yet to understand...our current version of science certainly isn't final, and can be added to or changed by a profound understanding or discovery that lies ahead down in the future...

in my own opinion, the "influences" of the further planets move slower in orbit, thus traditionally in astrology would be more "generational" then personal.

constellations actually have nothing to do with astrology-another big misunderstanding that many do not realize. there are 13 constellations in the zodiac, yet only 12 are used to "name" the signs. and that is all the influence they have of western astrology-just the names and symbols. to me, astrology is a connection that incorporates 50% geometry, math and astronomy, with the other 50% being human psychology. those who follow what astrology is most likely believe that all of life is connected, and feel that we are a part of our world, not a separate being from it.

 

[amt]

Extreme_machinations-
You are on the right track. Educate the Masses.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

(he was Adolf Hitler's astrologer- but try not to let that prejudice you)

I'm sorry but I would have to let that prejudice my thoughts. As far as I have read Hitler had no personal Astrologers only ones that worked in the ministry of propaganda. The one most famous of his supposed astrologers who gained his popularity when he escaped to America from Germany during WWII and stated that he could predict Hitlers next moves via astrology is a known charlatin.

I remember reading a quote about astrology. I don't remember who wrote it or exactly what it said, but let me put the basic idea down: Don't you think its incredibly egotistical for a man to look at the motions of planets and the arrangement of stars and think that all of these things happen to predict the most trivial events of his life? It would be like a worm looking at the rise and fall of nations and thinking that all of this happens to predict whether another worm will fall in love with him or something. It's absurd, there is no reason to believe it is true.

I doubt that even people who believe in Astrology think that all the matter in the universe is the equivalent of the leaves in their tea cup. The idea is quite opposite. They are not so egotistical but so humble to realize(believe) that all the universe has a profound effect on them. I'm not saying I necessarily believe it but I think the quote above is inaccurate of what these people believe.

Still having doubts? My friend and master skeptic James Randi performs a wonderful demo of how easily people are fooled by astrology. He went into a classroom, posing as an astrologer, and cast horoscopes for all the students. He had them read and rate the accuracy, and they almost overwhelmingly rated the horoscopes as accurate. The kicker? He had them pass around the horoscopes, and the students saw that every horoscope was exactly the same. It was worded vaguely enough that nearly everyone in the room thought they were being well-described. The horoscopes were so vague they matched nearly everyone, and so their predictive power was meaningless. It was all in the students' heads.

This doesn't prove anything about astrology. It's like using carnival Kirlian cameras to show that Kirlian photography is fake when we already know that the carnival cameras are fake Kirlian cameras.


It would be nice to see thurough research done using the real deal. The experiments I have read about even CSICOP wouldn't accept as being scientific, except that they don't mind because they agree with the results.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Kerry, I'm not sure if you have ever responded to this idea. It seems to me that if it works at all [I don't know enough to have an opinion on that point]astrology could be a complex book-keeping system that acts to measure any natural cycles that already exist in the population for other reasons entirely. If cycles exist over the relevant periods of time but are not related to the planets, what are the odds that astrology would chart these tendencies in the population with a fair degree of accuracy?

Or is that what you are saying. I have never been clear if astrology demands a cause and effect relationship, or a common force concept, or if coincidental timing is an acceptable explanation.

 

[Kerrie]

Kerry, I'm not sure if you have ever responded to this idea. It seems to me that if it works at all [I don't know enough to have an opinion on that point]astrology could be a complex book-keeping system that acts to measure any natural cycles that already exist in the population for other reasons entirely. If cycles exist over the relevant periods of time but are not related to the planets, what are the odds that astrology would chart these tendencies in the population with a fair degree of accuracy?

that's where the human factor comes in really. can we predict how populations will respond entirely with astrology? no, because cultural and environmental factors have a huge influence on why people make the choices they do. it is my belief that environmental and experience are more of an influence in the choices people make then astrological placements.

The Mars Effect was an experiment done on the correlation of the placement of Mars (symbolized with energy, force, physical movement) to those who were considered "champion athletes". http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/gauquelin/mars_effect.html

But to take into consideration with this study is, many people can have a strong Mars influence in their chart, but choose to never be athletes or never have the opportunity, thus where the environment/experience factor comes into play. This is why astrology cannot be a science-human will is not predictiable.

 

[SGT]

that's the big mystery that no one knows-what moves the planets in their cycles? what moves people in their cycles? it is certainly a force of somekind. perhaps it is a force we have yet to understand...our current version of science certainly isn't final, and can be added to or changed by a profound understanding or discovery that lies ahead down in the future...

in my own opinion, the "influences" of the further planets move slower in orbit, thus traditionally in astrology would be more "generational" then personal.

constellations actually have nothing to do with astrology-another big misunderstanding that many do not realize. there are 13 constellations in the zodiac, yet only 12 are used to "name" the signs. and that is all the influence they have of western astrology-just the names and symbols. to me, astrology is a connection that incorporates 50% geometry, math and astronomy, with the other 50% being human psychology. those who follow what astrology is most likely believe that all of life is connected, and feel that we are a part of our world, not a separate being from it.

To my knowledge the force behind planetary cycles is gravity and this has been known for 4 centuries.
About human cycles, I know of two main cycles:

• The circadian cycle. This is common to several living beings, animal and vegetal. lt is caused by the alternance of light and darkness.
• The women's menstrual cycles that averages 28 days, but varies from woman to woman and for any given woman may vary from month to month. It is close, but does not match the lunar cycle, that has a constant length of 29.53 days. But why do other mammals have different cycles? As you said, all life is connected.

Would you mention some human cycles with periods that could match the planetary ones?
As for the Mars effect, here is a report that contradicts it.

 

[Kerrie]

To my knowledge the force behind planetary cycles is gravity and this has been known for 4 centuries.
About human cycles, I know of two main cycles:

• The circadian cycle. This is common to several living beings, animal and vegetal. lt is caused by the alternance of light and darkness.
• The women's menstrual cycles that averages 28 days, but varies from woman to woman and for any given woman may vary from month to month. It is close, but does not match the lunar cycle, that has a constant length of 29.53 days. But why do other mammals have different cycles? As you said, all life is connected.

Would you mention some human cycles with periods that could match the planetary ones?
As for the Mars effect, here is a report that contradicts it.

ultimately, all living beings on Earth are affected by gravitational forces...if we had no gravity, our Earth would not rotate and mandate these light and dark forces as an example.

i am not really into proving or disproving astrology...like i said, it doesn't claim to be a science simply because human will cannot be pinned down to a science. with this in mind, it would be silly to try and make it a predictable science.

skeptics look for an easy explanation of astrology, but really, the only way to understand it is to learn it thoroughly-which can take years of studying.

 

[SGT]

ultimately, all living beings on Earth are affected by gravitational forces...if we had no gravity, our Earth would not rotate and mandate these light and dark forces as an example.

i am not really into proving or disproving astrology...like i said, it doesn't claim to be a science simply because human will cannot be pinned down to a science. with this in mind, it would be silly to try and make it a predictable science.

skeptics look for an easy explanation of astrology, but really, the only way to understand it is to learn it thoroughly-which can take years of studying.

I pointed gravity as the force moving the planets, because you said no one knows what moves them in their cycles.
You said that the outer planets move so slowly that they are not supposed to affect human cycles. I don't ask you how the closer planets do affect human cycles. I am only curious to know what are those cycles.

 

[Kerrie]

I pointed gravity as the force moving the planets, because you said no one knows what moves them in their cycles.
You said that the outer planets move so slowly that they are not supposed to affect human cycles. I don't ask you how the closer planets do affect human cycles. I am only curious to know what are those cycles.

for me personally, i typically look at the aspects and positions of the sun, mercury, venus, mars, jupiter, saturn, and especially the moon. hardcore astrologists will use EVERY planet and major planetoid, but i find they don't point out major personality tendencies.

as i stated previously, it is my own opinion based on what i have studied on regarding the outer planets. for me, the outer planets might affect the politics, or major events happening during a span of a year or two. for example, there was a string of sexual assaults against children who were then murdered there for awhile, and a harsh apsect we could observe had this same reflection.

i am not sure how many times i have to explain this, but astrology is not science, yet you continue to search for a scientific explanation that we can give it with OUR CURRENT VERSION OF SCIENCE. what if our current version of science cannot explain it? what if we are not "advanced" enough in our understanding of it to offer a complete physical scientific explanation?

as for your first question, what makes gravity what it is? i think this question deserves its own thread.

 

[SGT]

,
i am not sure how many times i have to explain this, but astrology is not science, yet you continue to search for a scientific explanation that we can give it with OUR CURRENT VERSION OF SCIENCE. what if our current version of science cannot explain it? what if we are not "advanced" enough in our understanding of it to offer a complete physical scientific explanation?

I am not asking for a scientific explanation, that you already said does not exist (at least now). But I have heard references to synchronicity for an explanation of why cycles on the planets match human cycles. Since you mentioned such cycles, I would like to know which are those cycles. I have already mentioned two: the circadian and the menstrual, but those are very short and don´t qualify for being affected by the planets. Are there cycles with lenghts of a few months (Mercury and Venus) or several years (Mars, Jupiter, Saturn)?

as for your first question, what makes gravity what it is? i think this question deserves its own thread.

It was not a question. It was an affirmation. I don´t think anybody knows what makes gravity what it is, but its effects are well known and I don´t think there is any doubt that gravity is what makes the movement of planets periodic.

 

[Kerrie]

I am not asking for a scientific explanation, that you already said does not exist (at least now). But I have heard references to synchronicity for an explanation of why cycles on the planets match human cycles. Since you mentioned such cycles, I would like to know which are those cycles. I have already mentioned two: the circadian and the menstrual, but those are very short and don´t qualify for being affected by the planets. Are there cycles with lenghts of a few months (Mercury and Venus) or several years (Mars, Jupiter, Saturn)?

It was not a question. It was an affirmation. I don´t think anybody knows what makes gravity what it is, but its effects are well known and I don´t think there is any doubt that gravity is what makes the movement of planets periodic.

there is already speculation that a woman's menstrual cycle coincides with the moons cycles (which circles the Earth in the same time). as i stated before, the force that moves the planets move us as beings, and is what the astrological theory is based on. what it is called, i don't know, it's not something i really dived into because i am more interested in the correlation of it, not what it is referred to.

a short blurb from a website astrology students trust:

Astrology sees mankind as being not only influenced by hereditary factors and the environment, but also by the state of our solar system at the moment of birth. The planets are regarded as basic life-forces, the tools we live by as well as the basis of our very substance. These planetary forces take on different forms, depending on their zodiacal position and on the way they relate to one another.

Astrodienst

i am no expert on astrology, although 12 years is a long time to study anything. i suggest you do some further reading on your own if you feel the need to have more extensive answers. i am beginning to feel that you are just testing me rather then being sincerely inquisitive.

 

[LeonhardEuler]

I doubt that even people who believe in Astrology think that all the matter in the universe is the equivalent of the leaves in their tea cup. The idea is quite opposite. They are not so egotistical but so humble to realize(believe) that all the universe has a profound effect on them. I'm not saying I necessarily believe it but I think the quote above is inaccurate of what these people believe.

I do not mean to say that people who believe in astrology are necisarily egotistical, but I do believe they hold one egotistical belief. Think about what it takes for a person look at a lunar eclipse and while wondering about why it happens, think to themselves "well, it must have something to do with me."

This doesn't prove anything about astrology. It's like using carnival Kirlian cameras to show that Kirlian photography is fake when we already know that the carnival cameras are fake Kirlian cameras.

I wasn't claiming this was a mathematical proof that astrology is wrong. It just demonstrates an important point: people can be fooled into believing that something is a remarkably accurate description of themselves when in fact it isn't. It illistrates the mechanism by which astrology gains undeserved credibility.

It would be nice to see thurough research done using the real deal. The experiments I have read about even CSICOP wouldn't accept as being scientific, except that they don't mind because they agree with the results.

There has been a lot of research on this topic and not really any evidence to lend any credibility to astrologer's claims. Look at the bibliograpohy of this paper for many examples of research that has beeb done on the subject. http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

All of this, though is beside the point. My point is that astrology makes a truth claim about something observable and is therefore on science's turf. It may sound nice to say that it doesn't have to meet the same standards as a scientific theory, but what that really means is that when astrology makes a claim that there is a statistical correlation between two observables, astrology should not be discredited if this correlation is shown time and again not to exist. Does this seem unreasonable to anyone? Why should astrology's truth claims be given any more leeway than any other set of truth claims, i.e. another scientific theory. And, most importantly, at the risk of sounding like a broken record: Why should I believe it? Why should I give it any more credibility that any other arbitrary hypothesis? The burden of proof is not on me to show that astrology is wrong any more than I need to prove that the migratory patterns of beluga whales don't predict the stock market. Why would anyone believe it in the first place? The fact that people believe it is no real evidence. If you took that as the evidence, then how do you separate it from augery, or oracle bones, or prophetic hallucinations from smoking a peyote cactus, or any other now discredited popular delusion?

 

[Kerrie]

All of this, though is beside the point. My point is that astrology makes a truth claim about something observable and is therefore on science's turf. It may sound nice to say that it doesn't have to meet the same standards as a scientific theory, but what that really means is that when astrology makes a claim that there is a statistical correlation between two observables, astrology should not be discredited if this correlation is shown time and again not to exist. Does this seem unreasonable to anyone? Why should astrology's truth claims be given any more leeway than any other set of truth claims, i.e. another scientific theory. And, most importantly, at the risk of sounding like a broken record: Why should I believe it? Why should I give it any more credibility that any other arbitrary hypothesis? The burden of proof is not on me to show that astrology is wrong any more than I need to prove that the migratory patterns of beluga whales don't predict the stock market. Why would anyone believe it in the first place? The fact that people believe it is no real evidence. If you took that as the evidence, then how do you separate it from augery, or oracle bones, or prophetic hallucinations from smoking a peyote cactus, or any other now discredited popular delusion?

it looks as if you don't want to consider the "human factor"-human beings have choices in who they become, astrology merely points out tendencies that can be in place. it seems you are trying to convince yourself more then anything it could never be valid. astrology does not promise some sort of definite equation of who you are based on geometrical aspects, so please, do throw this expectation out.

have you had your own chart done by a reputable astrologist? or do you just take what others tell you as possible fact? i suggest you find out on your own to be ultimately sure.

 

[SGT]

there is already speculation that a woman's menstrual cycle coincides with the moons cycles (which circles the Earth in the same time). as i stated before, the force that moves the planets move us as beings, and is what the astrological theory is based on. what it is called, i don't know, it's not something i really dived into because i am more interested in the correlation of it, not what it is referred to.

As I stated before, there is no coincidence between women's menstrual cycle (average 28 days, but varying from woman to woman and from month to month for the same woman) and the lunar cycle (29,53 days). Besides, this is a very anthropic point of view. Why does the Moon not affect other mammals?

i am no expert on astrology, although 12 years is a long time to study anything. i suggest you do some further reading on your own if you feel the need to have more extensive answers. i am beginning to feel that you are just testing me rather then being sincerely inquisitive.

If 12 years of study don't allow you to answer a simple question: (Wich are the human cycles that you mentioned in a previous post?), how do you expect I could obtain the answers by further reading?

 

[hypnagogue]

I never settled on a strong opinion on astrology because I wanted to see some rigorous and definitive statistical analysis done on the topic. I never saw an analysis like that until the Geoffrey Dean paper, which is pretty devastating in its thoroughness and finality. All this talk about through what mechanisms astrology could possibly work and so on is at best secondary-- what really matters is whether astrological methods can accurately predict some effects that are statistically distinguishable from chance, and the Dean paper seems to close the door rather firmly on that possibility.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I do not mean to say that people who believe in astrology are necisarily egotistical, but I do believe they hold one egotistical belief. Think about what it takes for a person look at a lunar eclipse and while wondering about why it happens, think to themselves "well, it must have something to do with me."

You seem to have missed my point. You are mixing up the perceived cause and effect. People who believe in astrology do not believe that their lives influence cosmological events. They believe that these events influence their lives. They don't see an eclipse and think that it must have something to do with them. They see the events in their lives and think it must have something to do with the cosmological events that they observe. Your example would be similar to saying that when Newton saw an apple fall he believed that the apple attracted the Earth rather than the other way around.

I wasn't claiming this was a mathematical proof that astrology is wrong. It just demonstrates an important point: people can be fooled into believing that something is a remarkably accurate description of themselves when in fact it isn't. It illistrates the mechanism by which astrology gains undeserved credibility.

The same can be said of theories in Psychology. The whole phenomena of MPD has been linked to psychologists impressing the idea on their subjects. That's just one example. People also have a tendency to not see certain qualities about themselves. I once told someone skeptical about astrology that he possessed a particular quality that is often associated with his sign. He flat out denied that he possessed the quality even though it was a major aspect of his personality. Most of the expiriments regarding Astrology I have seen have relied on either the person themself making an honest evaluation of their own personality or someone who doesn't even know a person making an evaluation of that persons personality. Neither of these would hold water if applied to psychology so I don't see why they should with regard to astrology. And I haven't even touched the surface of whether or not a proper astrological method was even used.

There has been a lot of research on this topic and not really any evidence to lend any credibility to astrologer's claims. Look at the bibliograpohy of this paper for many examples of research that has beeb done on the subject. http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

I'll take a look at it. I'm sure there are probably plenty of studies out there I haven't seen.

All of this, though is beside the point. My point is that astrology makes a truth claim about something observable and is therefore on science's turf... ect.

Astrology isn't about concrete things. It's about influences. Is it very easy to plot out mathematically the various psychological influences in a persons life? Wasn't Psychology at one time considered a bunch of hocus pocus that didn't really mean anything? If you don't apply a pyschological test or method appropriately or somehow for some reason manipulate your subjects responses won't you taint the entire process and produce invalid results?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I do not mean to say that people who believe in astrology are necisarily egotistical, but I do believe they hold one egotistical belief. Think about what it takes for a person look at a lunar eclipse and while wondering about why it happens, think to themselves "well, it must have something to do with me."

Your generalization isn't based on solid logic. Is it egotistical to believe when the temperature drops to 20° and my body turns cold, that my coldness is related to the environment's drop in temperature? Just because someone relates a personal condition to conditions of the universe doesn't make them egotistical since changing environmental conditions have demonstrated to us over and over again that they can affect us.

I wasn't claiming this was a mathematical proof that astrology is wrong. It just demonstrates an important point: people can be fooled into believing that something is a remarkably accurate description of themselves when in fact it isn't.

But so what? I can do the same thing with a collection of scientific facts. Does that demonstrate something about people's gullibility and lack of logic skills, or scientific facts?

It illistrates the mechanism by which astrology gains undeserved credibility.

No it doesn't. It illustrates a mechanism by which people can be fooled. Your example demonstrated absolutely nothing about astrology. It could have been psychic readings, genetic programming, or anything else that has been generalized to the point of broad applicability.

There has been a lot of research on this topic and not really any evidence to lend any credibility to astrologer's claims.

Let's say I tell you there is a gene which can make a person smile. You demand to know why people with this gene aren't always smiling. I explain that the gene only provides a weak inclination, but because genetics are at the very root of a human, that weak inclination is situated in such a way to exert influence only if nothing stronger gets in the way. However, there are LOTS of stronger influences, especially environmental influences as one grows up.

You, as a hardcore empiricist, have to test it. How will you test it? First, do you listen to the most serious advocates of the genetic theory who say the influence is basic, but weak? Or do you listen to the crackpots who publish columns in the newspaper everyday predicting how much smiling is going to happen among those who have that gene?

Trying to prove the crackpots wrong, you set up test after test looking for something so strong as they say it is, which isn't really what the original idea was at all. So when you fail to find evidence in support of crackpot stuff, you proclaim a genetic basis for smiling is bogus.

But who has the problem? Is it the smiling gene theory, or is it your lack of proper research into the issue because you assumed a priori it was all bullsh*t anyway, so why bother understanding it?

All of this, though is beside the point. My point is that astrology makes a truth claim about something observable and is therefore on science's turf. It may sound nice to say that it doesn't have to meet the same standards as a scientific theory, but what that really means is that when astrology makes a claim that there is a statistical correlation between two observables, astrology should not be discredited if this correlation is shown time and again not to exist.

See, you just can't imagine that a scientific investigation might start off improperly. You ASSUME that because nothing shows up in the research, the subject has nothing valid to offer. It couldn't possibly be that the research isn't even looking for the right thing in the right way could it?

Does this seem unreasonable to anyone? Why should astrology's truth claims be given any more leeway than any other set of truth claims, i.e. another scientific theory.

You have to distinguish between the popular crap and serious thinkers about this. You have it all lumped together. That's what Kerrie has been trying to get you to do, but you just keep coming back with generalities. You ask why astrology should be given leeway. Fair enough. But why should you be excused from doing your homework, and then get to come here and speak from an uninformed opinion about astrology? Does that represent the standard for science and scholarship?

If you took that as the evidence, then how do you separate it from augery, or oracle bones, or prophetic hallucinations from smoking a peyote cactus, or any other now discredited popular delusion?

Oracles and peyote experiences haven't been discredited by anyone other than those who set up experiments without a clue about what they are investigating.

And, most importantly, at the risk of sounding like a broken record: Why should I believe it? Why should I give it any more credibility that any other arbitrary hypothesis?

How do you know it is arbitrary if you haven't studied it? Your a priori assumption is showing again.

Why would anyone believe it in the first place?

By now you might think I believe in astrology, but I don't. I am just open. I am skeptical about most of the pop stuff, and wouldn't have an opinion at all except for the fact that I grew up around a bunch of Tauruses (and married one). Now, until I was in my 30s I didn't know anything about astrology, but I'd noticed years earlier certain similarities in my sisters, aunt, grandfather, and family friends. But it was a couple of years after I married my wife that I first thought about cycles because she shared personality traits with the people I mentioned. I was really surprised when I first found out they were all Tauruses, and that is what made me start to look at it.

I don't know what (if anything) might be the basis of it. I can merely say I have noticed certain tendencies. I think Ivan might have suggested that it doesn't mean there is a causal relationship between the shape of the universe and personality, it might be simple correspondence. Why is it so farfetched to imagine that? After all, think about the number of celestial cycles that took place while life evolved over billions of years. And aren't we subject to cycles ourselves? Might not there be some correspondence between biological and celestial cycles, and might that not be reflected in personality? In fact, that seems quite physicalistic to me, so I fail to understand the empiricists' knee-jerk and often venomous rejection of even
considering if there might be some (however minute) legitimate basis to astrology.

 

[SGT]

I don't know what (if anything) might be the basis of it. I can merely say I have noticed certain tendencies. I think Ivan might have suggested that it doesn't mean there is a causal relationship between the shape of the universe and personality, it might be simple correspondence. Why is it so farfetched to imagine that? After all, think about the number of celestial cycles that took place while life evolved over billions of years. And aren't we subject to cycles ourselves? Might not there be some correspondence between biological and celestial cycles, and might that not be reflected in personality? In fact, that seems quite physicalistic to me, so I fail to understand the empiricists' knee-jerk and often venomous rejection of even
considering if there might be some (however minute) legitimate basis to astrology.

I have tried to make Kerrie mention what are those biological cycles, but she refuses to. Would you please cite some of them (besides circadian and menstrual)?

 

[Moonbear]

there is already speculation that a woman's menstrual cycle coincides with the moons cycles (which circles the Earth in the same time).

That really doesn't make sense or else all women would have the same cycle. We'd all menstruate starting the same day, ovulate the same day, etc. There are some relationships between circadian rhythmicity and time of day of ovulation that are theorized, but that has nothing to do with the moon. And, actually, what makes a circadian rhythm circadian is that in the absence of time cues (i.e.,constant darkness, random feeding times), rhythmicity continues, but the period becomes different from 24 hours (this is termed a free-running rhythm). The period varies among individuals (even individuals housed in the same room), indicating the rhythm is internally generated, not caused by external cues. What the external cues do is to entrain the rhythm, or in other words, reset it daily so it is synchronized to the light dark cycle. But since this synchronization is lost as soon as we withhold just a few environmental cues (lights on or off, feeding time, temperature), and because we can entrain these rhythms to artificial light, we know this has nothing to do with things like phases of the moon or other planets.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I have tried to make Kerrie mention what are those biological cycles, but she refuses to. Would you please cite some of them (besides circadian and menstrual)?

Do you know the difference between generalistic receptivity and and a mind focused on (obsessed with) details? Say you are a robot I am trying to teach the sense of balance. You want to know the exact coordinates for every step you take, I want you to generally "sense" something about balance.

The cyclic thing is so weak, in my opinion, you have to "sense" it generally at this point. I do think if it is real someone could find a way to test it's very broad and subtle influence, but I've not heard of such a test yet. If the theory is correct, so many stronger factors can alter things you can't approach it empirically so exact and precise as you want to and find out anything.

 

[Les Sleeth]

That really doesn't make sense or else all women would have the same cycle. We'd all menstruate starting the same day, ovulate the same day, etc. There are some relationships between circadian rhythmicity and time of day of ovulation that are theorized, but that has nothing to do with the moon. And, actually, what makes a circadian rhythm circadian is that in the absence of time cues (i.e.,constant darkness, random feeding times), rhythmicity continues, but the period becomes different from 24 hours (this is termed a free-running rhythm). The period varies among individuals (even individuals housed in the same room), indicating the rhythm is internally generated, not caused by external cues. What the external cues do is to entrain the rhythm, or in other words, reset it daily so it is synchronized to the light dark cycle. But since this synchronization is lost as soon as we withhold just a few environmental cues (lights on or off, feeding time, temperature), and because we can entrain these rhythms to artificial light, we know this has nothing to do with things like phases of the moon or other planets.

I still say whatever is there is (if anything) would be obscured by demanding detailed predictions.

Say the Earth is covered by a pool of chemicals which heat causes to form crystals. The crystals are affected first by how much sunlight is present, and then also by gravity, atmospheric pressure, humidity, temperature, wind speed, dilution, asteroid impacts, internal turbulence, and lots of other factors.

Now, because the first thing to affect crystal formation is the sun, its changing intensity throughout the day creates phases. But even though it is the first influence, it is the weakest; yet even though the weakest, it is the broadest (being first). Because so many "narrowly" stronger influences can interfere, it isn't easy to see the broad, subtle basic thing at the rear.

You know, it might be that some minds can look at things so broadly and openly they detect some sort of pattern which those focused on minutia can't see. You might want to keep such minds out of the lab, but just because they don't care to translate everything into an empirically testable model doesn't mean they don't "see" or sense something.

 

[LeonhardEuler]

Your generalization isn't based on solid logic. Is it egotistical to believe when the temperature drops to 20° and my body turns cold, that my coldness is related to the environment's drop in temperature? Just because someone relates a personal condition to conditions of the universe doesn't make them egotistical since changing environmental conditions have demonstrated to us over and over again that they can affect us.

I see your point. However, starting one's inquiry from the assumption that an event must be linked to you with no evidence is still something I consider egotistical.

Does this seem unreasonable to anyone? Why should astrology's truth claims be given any more leeway than any other set of truth claims, i.e. another scientific theory.

You have to distinguish between the popular crap and serious thinkers about this. You have it all lumped together. That's what Kerrie has been trying to get you to do, but you just keep coming back with generalities. You ask why astrology should be given leeway. Fair enough. But why should you be excused from doing your homework, and then get to come here and speak from an uninformed opinion about astrology? Does that represent the standard for science and scholarship?

What are you saying, that the popular stuff must be subjected to experiment, but the stuff put forth by so called experts is immune to being disproven by actual data? I have already explained what gets me out of doing my homework. I will not assign a significant probability to the correctness of an arbitrary hypothesis without a reason for doing so. I will not waste my time studying a theory based on nothing. I first need to know that it is based on something so that I know its plausible enough to be worth my time. Likewise I hope you will not waste your time researching my beluga whale/stock market theory.

How do you know it is arbitrary if you haven't studied it? Your a priori assumption is showing again.

I strongly suspect that it is arbitrary because every time I ask for the basis of astrology I get an answer which is highly evasive, nonsense, or no answer at all. Once again I will invite someone to explain to me what it is based on.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I strongly suspect that it is arbitrary because every time I ask for the basis of astrology I get an answer which is highly evasive, nonsense, or no answer at all. Once again I will invite someone to explain to me what it is based on.

I'll do my best even though I am not an astrology believer. I am advocating being open to a different way of understanding reality, not astrology.

If you are predisposed to studying details, taking things apart, investigating relationships between components, infatuated with the mechanics of things . . . you might look primarily at that aspect of the universe your entire life. You might go to school and study only that, you might only think about that, watch specials on that, read books on that, have friends who have similar interests.

Your particular way of understanding--the reductionist, empirical method of inquiry--might eventually seem to you as the only valid way to know anything for sure. With that epistomological standard in place, you then judge everything else against that standard, never questioning if it is the only way to know. So if you catch someone claiming they think something might be true, your automatic reaction is to demand they provide information which satisfies YOUR standard of knowing.

If they try to explain they have a different method of knowing, you can't hear them. You insist they put it your way. But they haven't understood it your way.

Now, are you so sure your way (assuming it's the empirical way) is the only way to know? Can people "sense" something is true before they can demonstrate it? Can they personally investigate the truth of what they sense through their own method and still come know something?

 

[LeonhardEuler]

It illistrates the mechanism by which astrology gains undeserved credibility.

No it doesn't. It illustrates a mechanism by which people can be fooled. Your example demonstrated absolutely nothing about astrology. It could have been psychic readings, genetic programming, or anything else that has been generalized to the point of broad applicability.

I agree that it is broadly applicable, but that doesn't make it any less of a mechanism for astrology gaining undeserved credibility.

Let's say I tell you there is a gene which can make a person smile. You demand to know why people with this gene aren't always smiling. I explain that the gene only provides a weak inclination, but because genetics are at the very root of a human, that weak inclination is situated in such a way to exert influence only if nothing stronger gets in the way. However, there are LOTS of stronger influences, especially environmental influences as one grows up.

You, as a hardcore empiricist, have to test it. How will you test it? First, do you listen to the most serious advocates of the genetic theory who say the influence is basic, but weak? Or do you listen to the crackpots who publish columns in the newspaper everyday predicting how much smiling is going to happen among those who have that gene?

Trying to prove the crackpots wrong, you set up test after test looking for something so strong as they say it is, which isn't really what the original idea was at all. So when you fail to find evidence in support of crackpot stuff, you proclaim a genetic basis for smiling is bogus.

But who has the problem? Is it the smiling gene theory, or is it your lack of proper research into the issue because you assumed a priori it was all bullsh*t anyway, so why bother understanding it?

First off, let me state the most gigantic difference between astrology and genetics: evidence. If actual scientific researchers had come to the conclusion that a certain gene had an effect on smiling under certain circumstances, that must have been based on a direct experiment or a theory well established by experiment. If it was done by direct experiment, then as long as the experiment was well designed and executed, I have a good reason to believe it. If it is based on a well established theory, then I also have a reason to be inclined to believe it, although most likely, since it is a complex biological system, there will exist the possibility that other factors, considered unlikely, could eliminate the effect of the gene on smiling. To really verify it, It would be best to have a direct experiment. Let's say I try the experiment under certain conditions and it doesn't demonstrate the correctness of the theory. I then try more and more conditions and find no correlation. Sure, there could be a correlation under certain situations, but eventually the conditions become so restrictive that theory becomes almost completely vacuuous and useless. Astrology is not based on an experiment or experimentally verified theory. That raises a flag right away. It has also been demonstrated to make incorrect predictions in many circumstances. You can keep arguing that the conditions are not strict enough and that the effects are ever more subtle, but the theory eventually becomes useless. So you have a useless theory not based on any experimental evidence, other than anecdotes. Why believe it?!

 

[LeonhardEuler]

I'll do my best even though I am not an astrology believer. I am advocating being open to a different way of understanding reality, not astrology.

If you are predisposed to studying details, taking things apart, investigating relationships between components, infatuated with the mechanics of things . . . you might look primarily at that aspect of the universe your entire life. You might go to school and study only that, you might only think about that, watch specials on that, read books on that, have friends who have similar interests.

Your particular way of understanding--the reductionist, empirical method of inquiry--might eventually seem to you as the only valid way to know anything for sure. With that epistomological standard in place, you then judge everything else against that standard, never questioning if it is the only way to know. So if you catch someone claiming they think something might be true, your automatic reaction is to demand they provide information which satisfies YOUR standard of knowing.

If they try to explain they have a different method of knowing, you can't hear them. You insist they put it your way. But they haven't understood it your way.

Now, are you so sure your way (assuming it's the empirical way) is the only way to know? Can people "sense" something is true before they can demonstrate it? Can they personally investigate the truth of what they sense through their own method and still come know something?

All of this sounds very nice, but what I am saying boils down to this: If a theory makes testable predictions, you should not believe it if a test contrdicts those predictions. How can a theory be valid that makes incorrect predictions? Doesn't that contradict the definition of a theory being valid?

 

[Les Sleeth]

All of this sounds very nice, but what I am asking boils down to this: If a theory makes testable predictions, you should not believe it if a test contrdicts those predictions. How can a theory be valid that makes incorrect predictions? Doesn't that contradict the definition of a theory being valid?

Hmmmmm. I always worry when someone says, "all of this sounds very nice BUT . . ." because it usually means they didn't really listen and are just going on with their own point of view.

You aren't being careful enough. Look at what you said, "how can a theory be valid that makes incorrect predictions." Does the theory make the predictions or do people made predictions? How do you know what theory is being applied in astrological predictions if you don't understand the theory? There are a lot of crackpots doing astrology it seems. But that is an entirely different issue from if there is anything valid about some relationship existing between the shape of the universe and the shape of one's personality.

Here's the sort of prediction I've felt comfortable with.

People born between 2/19 and 3/20 are predisposed to being more sensitive than normal if other more strongly influential factors don't interfere.

Now, what does "sensitive" mean? Well, it can mean unusually sensitive to sensual stimulation; it can mean over-sensitive to criticism; it can mean sympathetic to other's problems; it can mean intuitiveness; it can mean physically over-reacting to physical stress to the point of weakening one's health . . .

To understand the predisposition to sensitivity, one has to understand all the ways it might manifest, as well as what happens when extra-sensitivity is suppressed, sublimated, transferred, denied, etc. The human psyche is very complex, and so any subtle, background influence isn't going to show itself in the gross, mechanistic, cynical tests devised by researchers who think it's all a crock to begin with.

 

[Kerrie]

That really doesn't make sense or else all women would have the same cycle.

I said there was speculation
never expressed this as my own opinion.

I have tried to make Kerrie mention what are those biological cycles, but she refuses to. Would you please cite some of them (besides circadian and menstrual)?

perhaps your reading is a little bit biased...i admitted i don't know, and stated what i focus on. so please excuse me for not getting an answer sooner since I do work full time, raise 2 children and happen to be 8 months pregnant. maybe you have the luxury of sitting around all day thinking about this, but i certainly don't.

the link i provided is redundant to this thread in my opinion. i think you will find some great answers if you sincerely have an interest to know (which i doubt now at this point). i have found many members here get off by just arguing instead of having a sincere interest in the question of why. but hey, whatever boosts your ego, i won't judge you, nor will i argue with you any longer.

astrology is a subject that needs to be studied in order to understand. it is not a simple equation, as sir isaac Newton says, "Sir-I have studied the matter. You have not." debating this topic with people who refuse to learn something valid about it is like debating with a 3 year old about a division problem.

 

[Kerrie]

Hmmmmm. I always worry when someone says, "all of this sounds very nice BUT . . ." because it usually means they didn't really listen and are just going on with their own point of view.

You aren't being careful enough. Look at what you said, "how can a theory be valid that makes incorrect predictions." Does the theory make the predictions or do people made predictions? How do you know what theory is being applied in astrological predictions if you don't understand the theory? There are a lot of crackpots doing astrology it seems. But that is an entirely different issue from if there is anything valid about some relationship existing between the shape of the universe and the shape of one's personality.

exactly the feeling i get too Les. it gets me frustrated when you can see plain as day folks who would rather argue then step over the line and be unafraid of finding out on their own what the truth is. for them, perhaps it is easier to just believe what a group of people they think they can trust says on any subject matter. a true skeptic will branch off and find out for themselves. as einstein said, "The important thing is not to stop questioning". he was a pisces as well Les

 

[hypnagogue]

By now you might think I believe in astrology, but I don't. I am just open.

As I said, I consider myself open on this subject as well, but the Dean paper (http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf ) has forced me to lean quite heavily towards skepticism. Anyone who has been reading this thread should most definitely read the paper, because it cuts through all the relatively superficial discussion and gets straight to the heart of the matter: Is there any statistically significant correlation between birth time and personality traits? The answer Dean and Kelly come to is a pretty resounding no.

In a little more detail, the paper uses meta-analysis on a variety of tests that have been performed to assess astrological methods. Astrology is actually given every chance to succeed in this paper by Dean and Kelly: They look at conditions most amenable to validating astrological predictions clearly and powerfully (people born minutes apart in the same hospital); they look at conditions in which subjects lie at the far, far extremes for some personality traits, such that these traits unambiguously exist and are most amenable to being detected or predicted by astrological methods; they look at cases where astrologers try to match a list of personality traits with the corresponding natal charts; they ask astrologers to rate their confidence in making various astrological judgments and see if the confidence level is correlated with a higher degree of success; they check astrologers' evaluations for consistency with each other; etc.

In each and every case, no statistically significant result is found. Because meta-anlysis is used, the statistical tests used are quite powerful. For the tests looked at in this paper, if we suppose that some astrological effect did indeed exist and was just not detected for whatever reason, the statistics rules out that such astrological effects could account for anything more than 1% or 2% deviation from chance. In other words, even if astrological effects did exist in these experiments, they were so small as to be negligible. Certainly if astrological effects elude such a powerful and rigorous statistical analysis, they cannot be the sorts of things that are actually noticeable in everyday people. If we believe we have some anecdotal evidence that astrological methods work, then, the statistics strongly suggests that that evidence is most likely misguided in some way or another.

This paper also eludes a number of the objections that have been raised in this thread. Judging by the subject matter of the paper and the way in which they approach the subject, the authors certainly seem to have 'open minds' and certainly don't seem biased or actively hopeful of discrediting astrology. Indeed, they actually seem to bend over backwards to give astrology some chance-- any chance-- to try to empirically support itself in some manner or another. Much of their discussion on astrology is based on published work from serious astrologers. The work of literally hundreds of astrologers has been incorporated into the meta-analysis. The statistical power of the tests is substantial enough to come to very strong conclusions with very high confidence. And the nature of the study makes no assumptions about underlying mechanisms-- all that it looks for is to see if some statistically significant correlation exists between birth times/places and various human traits, as is the central tenet of astrology.

 

[Kerrie]

Hyp, when I get some time, I will read over the paper. I read the first couple of paragraphs, and I am intrigued.

 

[Les Sleeth]

As I said, I consider myself open on this subject as well, but the Dean paper (http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf ) has forced me to lean quite heavily towards skepticism. Anyone who has been reading this thread should most definitely read the paper, because it cuts through all the relatively superficial discussion and gets straight to the heart of the matter: Is there any statistically significant correlation between birth time and personality traits? The answer Dean and Kelly come to is a pretty resounding no.

In a little more detail, the paper uses meta-analysis on a variety of tests that have been performed to assess astrological methods. Astrology is actually given every chance to succeed in this paper by Dean and Kelly: They look at conditions most amenable to validating astrological predictions clearly and powerfully (people born minutes apart in the same hospital); they look at conditions in which subjects lie at the far, far extremes for some personality traits, such that these traits unambiguously exist and are most amenable to being detected or predicted by astrological methods; they look at cases where astrologers try to match a list of personality traits with the corresponding natal charts; they ask astrologers to rate their confidence in making various astrological judgments and see if the confidence level is correlated with a higher degree of success; they check astrologers' evaluations for consistency with each other; etc.

In each and every case, no statistically significant result is found. Because meta-anlysis is used, the statistical tests used are quite powerful. For the tests looked at in this paper, if we suppose that some astrological effect did indeed exist and was just not detected for whatever reason, the statistics rules out that such astrological effects could account for anything more than 1% or 2% deviation from chance. In other words, even if astrological effects did exist in these experiments, they were so small as to be negligible. Certainly if astrological effects elude such a powerful and rigorous statistical analysis, they cannot be the sorts of things that are actually noticeable in everyday people. If we believe we have some anecdotal evidence that astrological methods work, then, the statistics strongly suggests that that evidence is most likely misguided in some way or another.

This paper also eludes a number of the objections that have been raised in this thread. Judging by the subject matter of the paper and the way in which they approach the subject, the authors certainly seem to have 'open minds' and certainly don't seem biased or actively hopeful of discrediting astrology. Indeed, they actually seem to bend over backwards to give astrology some chance-- any chance-- to try to empirically support itself in some manner or another. Much of their discussion on astrology is based on published work from serious astrologers. The work of literally hundreds of astrologers has been incorporated into the meta-analysis. The statistical power of the tests is substantial enough to come to very strong conclusions with very high confidence. And the nature of the study makes no assumptions about underlying mechanisms-- all that it looks for is to see if some statistically significant correlation exists between birth times/places and various human traits, as is the central tenet of astrology.

Most of what the paper discusses is precisely what I find unbelievable about astrology. Little of what they criticize is anything I would defend.

Let's try a different example. Say we acknowledge that creation appears to engender polarities, and we generalize the two sides of all polarities yin and yang. Now, it is true that polarity is a common occurance in the universe, but what can we infer from that? Can we infer that every aspect of life, from diet to furniture arrangement, can be analyzed by some yin-yang method?

Similarly, some people have sensed that there is some correlation between the shape of the universe and the shape of the personality. If from that simple observation fanatics go on to try to predict all sorts of nonsense, that doesn't mean the orignial insight was incorrect.

If we are to ponder the basis of astrology as I've suggested, then the Dean-Kelly paper made mistakes. The "time twins" for instance isn't a good test because being born at the same time only gives a weak, general tendency, and doesn't override the power of an individual's circumstances nor even whatever individuality someone might be born with.

If you want to take apart and criticize the practices of astrologers, that's one thing. But that is an entirely different subject from whether or not there is correspondence between the shape of the universe and one's personality inclinations.