Is there a correlation between birth month and disease risk?

[Ivan Seeking]

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

 

[Monique]

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

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

 

[skywise]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kerrie]

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

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

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

 

[Monique]

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Monique]

Another problem with Monique demanding statistical proof, which she is yet to acknowledge, is revealed by the fact that her words virtually drip with disdain for astrology, exposing her a priori opinion and therefore inablility to evalutate properly; afterall, she as much declared astrology bunk from the get go here (which is the general attitude of the scientific community).

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

You can see if she were to set up the test, it would be to test that had no chance of proving anything but what she already believes.

I proposed a test already, you tell me how the test is biased to disprove astrology.

If there is some sort of universal influence on personality, and if it is a very general effect, then the kind of detailed statistical analysis used for biochemistry won't be directly translateable to astrology.

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

Their certainty they are "right," and that anything not suited to computer analysis is bunk, is an arrogance I find hard to swallow, especially in people too young to have lived the theories they are so strongly advocating.

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

 

[Monique]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

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

i saw james randi doing it in television (in tv programme called paranormal or something like that).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

 

[Evo]

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

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

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

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

 

[Kerrie]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Evo]

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

I totally agree. I really do believe that there are many things that we have yet to understand. I'm not saying astrology isn't possible, I'm saying that I can't rationalize it.

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

 

[Kerrie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

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

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

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

http://www.muschealth.com/news/heart/september2003/

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

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

 

[Monique]

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

In fact I proposed that first in this thread.

The thing is, no such test has been done, yet we still hear you saying, "I still find it strange that a science minded person would believe this stuff.. you really believe it?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is why I put it as the undefined term 'feelings'.

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

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

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

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

 

[Saint]

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

 

[pelastration]

possible explanation ...

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

Hi Monique.

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

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

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

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

Dirk

 

[Monique]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=34730&postcount=90

Here, this is something I can work with and is actually quite an interesting idea AND it is testable in the lab..

 

[pelastration]

Here, this is something I can work with and is actually quite an interesting idea AND it is testable in the lab..

Thanks Monique. Go to that Lab ... but you will need ephemerides (tables with stand of planets) or astrology software.

 

[Kerrie]

Hi Monique.

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

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

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

 

[Kerrie]

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

Dirk

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

 

[pelastration]

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

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . . it seems unfair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Monique]

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

Kerrie, if you were to make a random judgement on a person.. how high would you estimate the change that the judgement is accurate? Would it be lower than 65%? Or would it be 65%?

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

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

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

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

 

[Kerrie]

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

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

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

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

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

I am interested to know what you think.

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

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay, this must be what I heard about.

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

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