Family conflict over horopscopes

[Schrodinger's Dog]

We are not interested in theories, only evidence.

Spoken like a true scientist.

There are no theories in astrology, nothing, not a single thing can explain any of it, there is no evidence either, except the extreme gullibility of some people, and the power of suggestion.

 

[stevecaudill]

Theories And Evidence

Damn, now you guys have me playing the other side of the debate!

Actually there are theories of astrology, for example the Indian version of astrology, called "Jyotisa", and it's offshoots:

"Jyotiṣa (Sanskrit jyotiṣa, from jyótis- "light, heavenly body": also spelled Jyotish and Jyotisha in English) is the ancient Indian system of astronomy and astrology (also known as Indian astrology, Hindu astrology, and of late, Vedic astrology). It has three branches:

1. Siddhanta: Indian astronomy.

2. Samhita: Mundane astrology, predicting important events based on analysis of astrological dynamics in a countries horoscope or general transit events such as war, Earth quakes, political events, financial positions, electional astrology; house and construction related matters (Vāstu Shāstra), animals, portents, omens etc.

3. Hora: Predictive astrology based on analysis of natal horoscopes and the moment a query is made.
T
he foundation of Jyotisha is the notion of bandhu of the Vedas or scriptures, which is the connection between the microcosm and the macrocosm. The practice of Jyotisha primarily relies on the sidereal zodiac, which is different from the tropical zodiac used in Western astrology in that an ayanamsa adjustment is made for the gradual precession of the vernal equinox. Jyotisha includes several nuanced sub-systems of interpretation and prediction with elements not found in Hellenistic astrology, such as its system of lunar mansions (nakshatras).

Astrology remains an important facet in the lives of many Hindus. In Hindu culture, newborns are traditionally named based on their jyotish charts, and jyotish concepts are pervasive in the organization of the calendar and holidays as well as in many areas of life, such as in making decisions made about marriage, opening a new business, and moving into a new home. To some extent, astrology even manages to retain a position among the sciences in modern India. Following a controversial judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2001, some Indian universities even offer advanced degrees in astrology..."

So, we do have "theories".

Now, using the scientific method, where's the evidence to prove them correct or false?

So the question still stands for the member, Enigma, why does he believe in astrology, and has it actually worked for him? For example, can he use a telescope to read the planets' and stars' positions and then log into Ameritrade and make some successful trades, consistently, based on what he 'read' from the skies?

Sure it sounds ridiculous, but since he says "I believe in it," and leaves off at that, then it's fair to ask him why, and as scientists, we should ask Enigma how his beliefs satisfy at least this informal scientific method:

"1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent. "

As for my beliefs, no I don't see any logical connection for how any planetary alignments can affect any births or events on earth, other than the moon affects the tides, and there is anecdotal evidence that the full moon maybe affects mental patients, hence the term "lunatic" is derived from the root word "luna", Latin for "moon."

 

[CEL]

We are not interested in theories, only evidence.

You are using the word theory in an unscientific way. If there was a scientific theory about horoscopes, we would be very interested in it.
A scientific theory makes predictions that can be tested against observations.
According to Popper a scientific theory must be falsifiable, meaning that experiments must be devised that would prove the theory false. For example, the hypothesis that aliens exist and have visited Earth cannot be falsified. The fact that there is no undeniable evidence for the hypothesis is not evidence that it is false. Aliens may exist and have visited us, but left no evidence. So, the existence of aliens and their visit is not a scientific theory.
In the same way, horoscopes, homeopathy and chi are not scientific theories.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, I was using the word theory exactly as was intended. I didn't say anything about a scientific theory.

I know that we have no scientific theory for astrology, so we are only interested in any evidence that might exist to support these beliefs.

 

[CEL]

No, I was using the word theory exactly as was intended. I didn't say anything about a scientific theory.

I know that we have no scientific theory for astrology, so we are only interested in any evidence that might exist to support these beliefs.

You are using theory in the sense creationists use it to disqualify the theory of evolution, meaning speculation or guess. It is OK to use it in informal conversation, but this is a scientific forum and we should use the words in their scientific meaning.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is scientific evidence, but there are many other kinds of evidence that we can consider for discussion here in S&D. Likewise, there are theories of science as well as personal theories. If there was a formal scientific theory that sought to explain the claims of astrology, it would be in the physics forum and not S&D, so I could have only been referring to personal theories, which are not allowed because this is a scientific forum.

 

[stevecaudill]

Well, I jumped in this forum to see why the member, "Enigma", who posted a very quick reply saying, "I believe in it". Assuming he was a scientist or had scientific training, well I was curious as to why he believes in it. Haven't heard from him though since his post. Maybe he reconsidered?

But, to segue out of this topic back to "real physics", I'll post a couple of final thoughts from the scientific community.

First, let's consider Mach's Principle, which was deeply considered by Einstein in formulating "General Relativity." Indeed, Mach apparently did not consider his hypothoses as comprising "Mach's Principle," that was coined by Einstein while workin on General Relativity. Though unproved and perhaps unprovable, Einstein sought with partial success to incorporate Mach's Principle into the general theory of relativity.

Mach's principle can be roughly defined in the following ways:
- The precept that the inertia of objects results not from their relationship to Newtonian absolute space, but to the rest of the mass and energy distributed in the universe.

- A pre-relativity statement to the effect that the local inertial frame is determined by some average of the motion of all the matter in the universe. In essence, it says that space, which is the arena in which matter interacts, is itself an aspect of that matter.

- The hypothesis that the inertia of bodies - that is, their resistance to acceleration by applied forces - is determined not by any absolute properties of space but by the effects of distant matter in the universe. equivalently, Mach's principle proposes that the distinction between accelerated and nonaccelerated frames of reference is determined by the effects of distant matter.

- has definition The hypothesis that the local inertial frame and the inertia of anybody is determined by the distribution of all the matter in the universe.

So, given the above, one can see how today's proponents of "quantum mysticism" can borrow the concepts and say, "Look everyone! Even Einstein and Mach think that the stars influence things here on earth!"

So much for Mach...

Let's move on to Kepler, who discovered his 3 laws of planetary motion. Kepler was also widely regarded in his day as an astrologer.

His belief in astrology is exemplified by his statement, "…almost every motion of the body or soul or its transition to a new state occurs at a moment when the figure of the heavens corresponds to its birth figure ..."
For more on Kepler and astrology see the wikipedia links at the bottom of his wiki.

Well, I think this thread has been a mini-lesson for scientists in two things:

1) We really have to do our research and present our arguments coherently to disprove these unscientific notions which superstitious people cling to; and

2) Superstitious people, including the so-called New Age Quantum Mystics, such as those featured in the movie, "What the Bleep, Down the Rabbit Hole," will grasp on the concepts of science and use them to promote their own version of pseudo-science.

stevemc2

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm a Scorpio too. Below, I evaluate the accuracy or the characteristics, as they apply to me, on a scale of 0 (not a grain of similarity) to 10 (dead on accurate).

"Article 7 - General.

Astrologers consider Scorpios to be energetic,

7, but I'd like to point out that this word is variously interpretable. Is this referring to physical energy, or mental, emotional, or other kinds of "energy"?

passionate,

9. This word has one dominant meaning but can apply to a wide range of pursuits. I am very passionate about a very small number of things. I think very few people will claim to lack passion for anything.

deep,

2, based on my best interpretation of this term. I know (and care to know) only a very, very small set of things somewhat deeply. I'm a hoarder of trivia. I'm also not at all deeply introspective, if that is the correct interpretation to apply.

intuitive,

?. I'll leave this unanswered because of the large possibility for large errors. I refuse to be "intuitive" in the sense in which that word is typically used by people. On the other hand, I have developed a good scientific intuition for some things. But the organ involved in this process is the brain, not the gut.

and secretive,

2. And this post is evidence.

with a great deal of self-control.

2. Very little.

They also believe that Scorpios can be willful,

?

stubborn,

8. What I call a lack of gullibility others call stubbornness, but I'll grant that interpretation.

and easily made jealous.

1. Nothing much to say.

Scorpios are thought to be keen observers of people,

1. I'm not giving this a zero because I think there a people worse off than me...if I can go by things I've seen on TV!

and potentially calculating and manipulative.

2. There's not desire, but I guess a little bit of potential exists, if this comes down to a question of capability.

Seeing more of people's deepest motivations than others do, they have a tendency to be cynical.

4. Ha ha! If you follow the logic behind this statement, you will deduce that the person writing this is a cynic. I'm somewhat cynical, not because I've seen deeper into people (assuming that their depths are filled with ill-will), but because whatever little I've seen was disappointing, more often than not.

They are sensitive and never forget a hurt or a slight.

1. I don't think I can be easily outdone in forgetting stuff like that, not that I make a careful effort to forget. I'm just incredibly forgetful about who said/did what to me, when, how or for what reason. I can, however, tell you the logarithms and square roots of any integer to better than 3 significant figures.

For the typical Scorpio, forgiveness can be difficult.

5. Too much explanation involved.

Astrologers consider Scorpio perhaps the most extreme of all signs. The intensity and focus of Scorpios gives them great ability to see a project through despite all obstacles.

5. There are only a couple of long term projects that I've stuck with, that took any kind of determination or focus. On the other hand, I've abandoned countless short-term projects that I grew bored of into the third day.

Their strong leadership qualities,

3. Have little experience to judge from.

incisive analytic abilities,

9. Agree.

energy,

7. Repeat.

and desire for financial security

3. Ahem, I chose to do Physics.

can make them motivated career people.

7. I'm motivated, but not for the reason given above.

Many Scorpios also like to flirt with danger and push themselves and those close to them to their limits.

3. Other than choosing a financially risky career and the occasional hike/climb that can get a little hairy, I've not flirted very much with danger. And I certainly haven't pushed anyone into it against their desire.

Professions traditionally associated with Scorpio include forensics, law enforcement or detective work, the military, medicine, psychology, big business, and recycling."

2, and that may be generous (but it makes the average a whole number). Physics

Unweighted average score: 4/10

Thing is, being a scientist, I will be the first to admit that a single, strong counterexample demonstrates almost nothing. On the other hand, I've come across numerous arguments for the goodness of Astrology based entirely on sample sizes that are far from statistically meaningful.

 

[CEL]

I'm a Scorpio too. Below, I evaluate the accuracy or the characteristics, as they apply to me, on a scale of 0 (not a grain of similarity) to 10 (dead on accurate).
7, but I'd like to point out that this word is variously interpretable. Is this referring to physical energy, or mental, emotional, or other kinds of "energy"?
9. This word has one dominant meaning but can apply to a wide range of pursuits. I am very passionate about a very small number of things. I think very few people will claim to lack passion for anything.
2, based on my best interpretation of this term. I know (and care to know) only a very, very small set of things somewhat deeply. I'm a hoarder of trivia. I'm also not at all deeply introspective, if that is the correct interpretation to apply.
?. I'll leave this unanswered because of the large possibility for large errors. I refuse to be "intuitive" in the sense in which that word is typically used by people. On the other hand, I have developed a good scientific intuition for some things. But the organ involved in this process is the brain, not the gut.
2. And this post is evidence.
2. Very little.
?
8. What I call a lack of gullibility others call stubbornness, but I'll grant that interpretation.
1. Nothing much to say.
1. I'm not giving this a zero because I think there a people worse off than me...if I can go by things I've seen on TV! 2. There's not desire, but I guess a little bit of potential exists, if this comes down to a question of capability.
4. Ha ha! If you follow the logic behind this statement, you will deduce that the person writing this is a cynic. I'm somewhat cynical, not because I've seen deeper into people (assuming that their depths are filled with ill-will), but because whatever little I've seen was disappointing, more often than not.
1. I don't think I can be easily outdone in forgetting stuff like that, not that I make a careful effort to forget. I'm just incredibly forgetful about who said/did what to me, when, how or for what reason. I can, however, tell you the logarithms and square roots of any integer to better than 3 significant figures.
5. Too much explanation involved.
5. There are only a couple of long term projects that I've stuck with, that took any kind of determination or focus. On the other hand, I've abandoned countless short-term projects that I grew bored of into the third day.
3. Have little experience to judge from. 9. Agree.
7. Repeat.
3. Ahem, I chose to do Physics.
7. I'm motivated, but not for the reason given above.
3. Other than choosing a financially risky career and the occasional hike/climb that can get a little hairy, I've not flirted very much with danger. And I certainly haven't pushed anyone into it against their desire.
2, and that may be generous (but it makes the average a whole number). Physics

Unweighted average score: 4/10

Thing is, being a scientist, I will be the first to admit that a single, strong counterexample demonstrates almost nothing. On the other hand, I've come across numerous arguments for the goodness of Astrology based entirely on sample sizes that are far from statistically meaningful.

Hey, I am a Scorpio and my scores are very similar to yours. Maybe there is something true in astrology. Only the astrologers got it wrong. If they inversed their analysis your score (and mine) would be 6/10.

 

[D H]

I'm a Scorpio too.

Wow! That really nails me! Except for the self control, vengeful, and working in recycling parts. Another minor problem: I'm not a Scorpio. I am a Capricorn/Acquarius cusper.

The problem with these general is that they nail everyone to some extent. Because they are generally positive descriptions, the true-believers say "yeah, that's me" and ignore the mismatches.

So how do I rank as a Capricorn/Acquarius cusper?

http://www.astrology.com/allaboutyou/cusps/index.html"

Those born on the Capricorn/Aquarius cusp are involved with and interested in social institutions. They want to make them work as they were meant to work. They are humanitarians and philanthropists,

8. Does PF count? In a different volunteer role I had 600 kids and 1000 parents under my belt at one point. This is a nice generalization; most people are "involved with and and interested in social institutions" and like to see themselves as one of the good people.

the visionaries of the Zodiac.

6. I'm an applied Newtonian mechanicist, aka an aerospace engineer. OTOH, ALL rocket scientists are visionaries, aren't they?

Friendship is important to them, and they have many acquaintances, in addition to their close friends.

4. Not so much so now as in my younger days.

These people are also ambitious and disciplined, determined and dedicated to achieving their goals.

9. But this is far too general.

They are practical, realistic and cautious not to get in over their heads.

2. I love getting in over my head. I know this, so I do temper this penchant with a touch of realism. Realism remains a secondary concern. I love untested waters. How else can I learn?

Average: 5.8. With all these generalities about a specific set of days, that's not very good.

Then again there's this: http://www.rainfall.com/horoscop/caaqcusp.htm"

Like all cusps, the Capricorn/Aquarius is attracted to other cusps, especially Cancer/Leo(July 19-25)

10. My wife! She and I have birthdays separated by exactly six months.

As a skeptic (my Scorpio tendencies??), I say lucky guess. A true believer would say otherwise.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Is it just me, or does it seem like they took a thesaurus and just started to blindly list off a bunch of adjectives, and even sometimes throwing in a few antonyms without realizing it?

 

[D H]

Not all all. These people have perfected their art over thousands of years. They know exactly which buttons to push to sway the gullible. If you want to see a group that does take a thesaurus and just blindly starts with a bunch of adjectives, read any "serious" literature on the "postmodern deconstruction of the materialistic culture of science".