Is there scientific evidence to support the claims of astrology?

[Kerrie]

There are plenty of irrational beliefs that people still continue to cling on to. I would have no problem with this were it not to be sometimes harmful to the health or happiness of the believers (and even those they influence). Astrology is one of those things I despise because people are often harmed by its belief and practice. Politicians and business leaders stand to lose millions because of foolish postponements of summits and meetings on the say-so of modern soothsayers. In some countries (like India), unhappy marriages result because some astrologer looked at some palms and natal charts and pronounced his blessings on an arranged union between ultimately incompatible partners.

I have yet to see someone "harmed" by studying astrology. This statement is more of your opinion because you believe it can harm someone. If astrology were to "harm" someone, it is the fault of the person making the choices they do, not of astrology. Let's not "blame" astrology for that, let the person take responsibility for their actions. Remember, free will

 

[SGT]

I have yet to see someone "harmed" by studying astrology. This statement is more of your opinion because you believe it can harm someone. If astrology were to "harm" someone, it is the fault of the person making the choices they do, not of astrology. Let's not "blame" astrology for that, let the person take responsibility for their actions. Remember, free will

You are right! We must blame the bad choices a person makes for his/her harms, but this does not take the blame from the people that put irrational beliefs on the mind of this person.
I don´t know personally of harms from belief in astrology, but a friend of mine died of cancer after being convinced to have a psychic surgery performed. May be she would have died anyway after following conventional treatment, but the psychic surgery certainly did no good at all.
And what about children that take no vaccines because some idiot convinced their parents that vaccines can cause autism?
And what about young african girls that are infected with AIDS because some people believe that having sex with a virgin cures AIDS.
Millions of people share those and other irrational beliefs. This does not make them true and does not absolve from guilt the proponents of the beliefs, even if the ones that were harmed used their free will.

 

[LeonhardEuler]

I don´t know personally of harms from belief in astrology

People give money away to astrologers all the time. That is harm. People base important decisions such as who they will marry on astrology. That can be harmful too.

 

[SpaceTiger]

No, that's wrong. There will "always be observational error" but it can be quantified. If a theory says that "the amount of Carbon in the sample should be 1 kg", the experiment testing it has an possible error of "plus or minus10%, and the experiment shows that, in fact the amount of Carbon was 2 kg, then the theory is wrong.

Actually, that "plus or minus 10%" that you're referring to is a confidence interval, so it does not say "we're 100% sure that our measurement lies within that range", it says that they're 90% or 95% sure that it lies within that range. Even if we grant the experimentalists the possibility that their error estimates are exactly correct -- and they usually aren't, error underestimation is a big problem in my field -- no theory is disproven with 100% confidence.

That's why scientists (or, more correctly, "meta"-scientists) focus on "falsifiability".

I would say that theories can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but they can be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt. The distinction between proof and disproof was not the point of my argument, however, it was the distinction between 100% confidence and <100% confidence as concerns our understanding of "falsifiability".

 

[Kerrie]

People give money away to astrologers all the time. That is harm. People base important decisions such as who they will marry on astrology. That can be harmful too.

You can say that about alcohol and gambling too, which are far more destructive and addictive, not too mention much more common. I think now straws are being grasped to make astrology look bad by putting the blame on the subject itself, that's just as ridiculous as those you accuse those who study it. People make choices, they need to take responsibility.

 

[loseyourname]

I would have to agree with this simply because the complexity of variables in a chart are never identical to any other's chart. I would think in order for astrology to go through scientific testing, both subjects being tested must be born at exact times, exact places, and have exact experiences. Without this, the test would technically be invalid because you aren't comparing two identical charts, which leaves room for variances.

You may have missed it the first time, but I kind of asked a question about this earlier that went ignored. You seem to be saying that no two charts are alike, and so no two people are alike. Fair enough. However, if one million people share chart feature X, but show absolutely no statistical correlation between that feature and personality trait Y, for whatever reason (free will, their charts are different in other ways, etc.), how can an astrologer claim that feature X even pulls a person toward trait Y? On what does the astrologer base that claim? This comes back again to the question of the first astrologer: (Hypothetically) If the first astrologer claimed that people having Mars in Virgo at the moment of birth were imparted with the tendency to succeed in business ventures, but there was no statistical evidence to suggest any correlation whatsoever between business success and having Mars in Virgo at birth, on what did he base the claim? If he didn't make his deductions scientifically, that's fine, but how did he make them?

 

[Kerrie]

However, if one million people share chart feature X, but show absolutely no statistical correlation between that feature and personality trait Y, for whatever reason (free will, their charts are different in other ways, etc.), how can an astrologer claim that feature X even pulls a person toward trait Y? On what does the astrologer base that claim?

There are other factors in the chart the astrologer uses to interpret feature X, such as aspects (up to 5 major ones, and a few minor ones). If Mars in Virgo in the 3rd house (as opposed to the other 11 houses) has a trine, and/or conjunct, and/or opposition, etc to any of the 8 planets or sun, then there are infinite possibilities of how that feature would be expressed. It is not a matter of saying that people with Mars in Virgo are this or that, but how the chart is expressed as a whole. For two people to have identical chart (and I mean identical), it is 99.99999999% impossible. As I said before, for that extreme slight chance for people to have the identical chart, they need to begin breathing on their own at the same minute, in the same latitude/longitude, on the same day. Twins have very similar charts, but not identical because they are born at a different minute, which can alter their chart.

I have a program that basically shows a chart moving every second, you just plug in the longitude/latitude. So if that chart moves constantly (and the chart is actually showing a map of the planets moving in reflection to the earth), then it changes as each child is born. To base statistics on that is then automatically flawed (at least I would believe it to be) because the charts of two individuals would be different. So, to be hypothetical about the situation you proposed sort of defeats the purpose of astrology-we are all unique individuals with our own personal wills. The planetary positions at each moment are also individual since they all move at their own pace.

Each house, planet and 30 degree section of the ecliptic (aka "zodiac sign") have symbolic themes that are pieced together to paint a picture of the person's tendencies. Now here's where I can get super specific about what each means, but it could put you to sleep. Just know that when a chart is interpreted, you have 9 planets, several asteroids (not all astrologers use these), the aspects between each planet(around 9 different ones as mentioned above) and 360 degrees of a circle (earth's ecliptic) of where each can be placed.

These symbolic themes came from years of studying people, and the studying still continues for those who are super serious. The Mars Effect study I mentioned earlier showed that those who had Mars (planet of physical energy/male energy/agression) in the first house/rising sign (the house that represents "me", or "who I am") had athletic tendencies a majority of the time. How do you explain those who weren't athletic whatsoever yet still had Mars in the first house? Well, you would have to be sure that the birth time was correct, then check any negative aspects-is there a square from Saturn in the 4th or 10th house (as an example)? In what sign is Saturn in? Is there a grand trine that affects Mars? Etc, etc.

Does that help any? Sometimes I get so engrossed with astrology, I forget how to communicate in layman's terms.

 

[xPAGANx]

There are other factors in the chart the astrologer uses to interpret feature X, such as aspects (up to 5 major ones, and a few minor ones). If Mars in Virgo in the 3rd house (as opposed to the other 11 houses) has a trine, and/or conjunct, and/or opposition, etc to any of the 8 planets or sun, then there are infinite possibilities of how that feature would be expressed. It is not a matter of saying that people with Mars in Virgo are this or that, but how the chart is expressed as a whole. For two people to have identical chart (and I mean identical), it is 99.99999999% impossible. As I said before, for that extreme slight chance for people to have the identical chart, they need to begin breathing on their own at the same minute, in the same latitude/longitude, on the same day. Twins have very similar charts, but not identical because they are born at a different minute, which can alter their chart.

I have a program that basically shows a chart moving every second, you just plug in the longitude/latitude. So if that chart moves constantly (and the chart is actually showing a map of the planets moving in reflection to the earth), then it changes as each child is born. To base statistics on that is then automatically flawed (at least I would believe it to be) because the charts of two individuals would be different. So, to be hypothetical about the situation you proposed sort of defeats the purpose of astrology-we are all unique individuals with our own personal wills. The planetary positions at each moment are also individual since they all move at their own pace.

Each house, planet and 30 degree section of the ecliptic (aka "zodiac sign") have symbolic themes that are pieced together to paint a picture of the person's tendencies. Now here's where I can get super specific about what each means, but it could put you to sleep. Just know that when a chart is interpreted, you have 9 planets, several asteroids (not all astrologers use these), the aspects between each planet(around 9 different ones as mentioned above) and 360 degrees of a circle (earth's ecliptic) of where each can be placed.

These symbolic themes came from years of studying people, and the studying still continues for those who are super serious. The Mars Effect study I mentioned earlier showed that those who had Mars (planet of physical energy/male energy/agression) in the first house/rising sign (the house that represents "me", or "who I am") had athletic tendencies a majority of the time. How do you explain those who weren't athletic whatsoever yet still had Mars in the first house? Well, you would have to be sure that the birth time was correct, then check any negative aspects-is there a square from Saturn in the 4th or 10th house (as an example)? In what sign is Saturn in? Is there a grand trine that affects Mars? Etc, etc.

Does that help any? Sometimes I get so engrossed with astrology, I forget how to communicate in layman's terms.

How in the world did anyone have any kind of accuracy in Astrology before computers?

 

[Kerrie]

How in the world did anyone have any kind of accuracy in Astrology before computers?

Easy, you figured it out manually. It's a long process of calculating where planets are by using an ephemeris, using a latitude/longitude chart, and converting times from the GMT. Bascially just plotting coordinates. This is how I did it for years before I owned a computer and program. The program just cuts down the time to figure it, so while it's good "practice" to know how the chart is calculated manually, the computer programs help you save time to focus on the interpretations.

 

[SGT]

Kerrie, you evaded the question posed by loseyourname. So, I will pose it again and will keep posing it until you give an answer:
IF EFFECTS ARE SO TINY AND MASKED BY FREE WILL, HOW DID ASTROLOGERS FIGURE THAT THERE IS A CORRELATION BETWEEN A CERTAIN ASTRAL CONFIGURATION AND SOME HUMAN TRAIT?
If the effects were more pronounced or independent of free will, observation would point the correlation. Since you recognize that no observation confirms any correlation, except for the infamous Mars effect, I must conclude that astrologers made it all up.

 

[Kerrie]

Kerrie, you evaded the question posed by loseyourname. So, I will pose it again and will keep posing it until you give an answer:
IF EFFECTS ARE SO TINY AND MASKED BY FREE WILL, HOW DID ASTROLOGERS FIGURE THAT THERE IS A CORRELATION BETWEEN A CERTAIN ASTRAL CONFIGURATION AND SOME HUMAN TRAIT?
If the effects were more pronounced or independent of free will, observation would point the correlation. Since you recognize that no observation confirms any correlation, except for the infamous Mars effect, I must conclude that astrologers made it all up.

Allow loseyourname to respond to what I said:

Does that help any? Sometimes I get so engrossed with astrology, I forget how to communicate in layman's terms

Don't answer for him, I am awaiting his reply to communicate with him.

 

[Yaaks]

A straight answer would be,,
Astrology Ruled before the era of inventions and discoveries...
Other than that its just bull****.
We live in a world bound by the laws of nature, the laws of science and NOT ASTROLOGY...

 

[Kerrie]

A straight answer would be,,
Astrology Ruled before the era of inventions and discoveries...
Other than that its just bull****.
We live in a world bound by the laws of nature, the laws of science and NOT ASTROLOGY...

who is claiming that our world is bound by astrology?

 

[Yaaks]

its more of a general statement...

 

[SGT]

Allow loseyourname to respond to what I said:

Don't answer for him, I am awaiting his reply to communicate with him.

OK, I will let loseyourname respond. But can you answer to my question:
IF EFFECTS ARE SO TINY AND MASKED BY FREE WILL, HOW DID ASTROLOGERS FIGURE THAT THERE IS A CORRELATION BETWEEN A CERTAIN ASTRAL CONFIGURATION AND SOME HUMAN TRAIT?

 

[Kerrie]

OK, I will let loseyourname respond. But can you answer to my question:
IF EFFECTS ARE SO TINY AND MASKED BY FREE WILL, HOW DID ASTROLOGERS FIGURE THAT THERE IS A CORRELATION BETWEEN A CERTAIN ASTRAL CONFIGURATION AND SOME HUMAN TRAIT?

Read my posts. I am not going to continue to repeat myself over and over. Your question does not reflect what I said, so please read carefully and put aside your bias. There is an answer there if you read.

 

[LeonhardEuler]

Read my posts. I am not going to continue to repeat myself over and over. Your question does not reflect what I said, so please read carefully and put aside your bias. There is an answer there if you read.

I've been following this thread from the start looking for an answer to that question and don't remember ever finding one, other than being sent to a link that didn't answer the question. Could you show me where the question was answered?

 

[Kerrie]

I have a program that basically shows a chart moving every second, you just plug in the longitude/latitude. So if that chart moves constantly (and the chart is actually showing a map of the planets moving in reflection to the earth), then it changes as each child is born. To base statistics on that is then automatically flawed (at least I would believe it to be) because the charts of two individuals would be different. So, to be hypothetical about the situation you proposed sort of defeats the purpose of astrology-we are all unique individuals with our own personal wills. The planetary positions at each moment are also individual since they all move at their own pace.

These symbolic themes came from years of studying people, and the studying still continues for those who are super serious. The Mars Effect study I mentioned earlier showed that those who had Mars (planet of physical energy/male energy/agression) in the first house/rising sign (the house that represents "me", or "who I am") had athletic tendencies a majority of the time. How do you explain those who weren't athletic whatsoever yet still had Mars in the first house? Well, you would have to be sure that the birth time was correct, then check any negative aspects-is there a square from Saturn in the 4th or 10th house (as an example)? In what sign is Saturn in? Is there a grand trine that affects Mars? Etc, etc.

The complexity of the chart has to be pieced together like a puzzle for each individual. It's not as simple as "If you have this placement, that will happen". It's about reading many placements together, sort of like how a symphony works...you have many different instruments working together, but one instrument alone does not make the symphony. When you hear that astrology was the first astronomy, there is some truth to this statement. It has literally been studied for thousands of years.

 

[LeonhardEuler]

By "years of studying people" do you mean statistical studies or anecdotes? If the effects are so shrouded in the noise resulting from other effects so as to be undetectable by experiment, how were they detected?

 

[Kerrie]

By "years of studying people" do you mean statistical studies or anecdotes? If the effects are so shrouded in the noise resulting from other effects so as to be undetectable by experiment, how were they detected?

As I mentioned above, various foundations (such as the NCGR) conduct surveys and studies consistently. Being how ancient astrological roots are, I highly doubt any detailed statistical studies have been done; and I mentioned above it is extremely impossible to compare two people and their charts since their charts will be different. Symbolism is used quite a bit in astrology, again as I mentioned above to loseyourname. Each planet, house and aspect all have a "theme", and that was established by studying people in general. When you mix all of these variables together, you get a completely unique individual, just like at a given moment each planet has a different position in relation to one another.

I have repeated this over and over in different words. At this point, I wish to not repeat myself, I suggest you read a professional astrological site (several links were given for reference) to understand this, they may be more concise and direct with what I am trying to communicate in this forum.

 

[depali]

I do believe in astrology though not strongly.The thing i disagree with is predicitions.When you hear the word astrology,you think of the star/sun signs.However,to determine a person's personality you need to know his natal chart which includes the date,place and time of birth.The 3 most important things are the sun,moon & ascendant.Neutrinos are subatomic particles composed of vibrating strings that can change your DNA(planets too) and make up the universe.They pass through everything,planets,humans,etc.The main source are the stars,and sun is one, and scatter in every direction.In our early stages of development we're more vulnerable to such modifications.As The planets get more distant the number of neutrinos reduce & therefore those after Jupiter don't have a lot of significance in one's chart.Thus, we've the different zodiac personalities and on studying birth charts of myself & some others I've found this to be relevant.