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?