Is there scientific evidence to support the claims of astrology?

[hypnagogue]

Well, for one thing, the astrological methods studied in this paper did not operate on the fine grained level of diet and furniture arrangement and so on, so that amounts to a strawman. I also found no indication that the astrologers tested, or their general methods, constitute fanaticism in the field of astrology-- that seems to be another strawman. (Perhaps Kerrie can weigh in with her opinion here.)

I'll grant that the paper does not definitively rule out some ambiguous, unspecified notion of some sort of correlation between personality traits and some wider features of the universe, but it does apply to the specific kinds of correlations postulated by astrology. This includes, e.g., your personal observation that Tauruses tend to behave in such-and-such a way. If that sort of observation held, one would think e.g. that astrologers would be able to match natal charts with the actually corresponding personality traits with at least some degree of success above chance, or that astrologers' professed degree of confidence in making astrological evaluations would at least weakly correlate with a higher degree of success-- but none of these held in the study. Modulo the specific claims and methods of existent astrology, it's not at all clear what substantive residue is left to constitute your general notion of correlation between personality and the universe, or why one should believe in such a thing in the first place.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Well, for one thing, the astrological methods studied in this paper did not operate on the fine grained level of diet and furniture arrangement and so on, so that amounts to a strawman.

I don't see the strawman. In my opinion "fine grain" is exactly what they did. They focused on the current "experts" in the field, most of whom are convinced they can predict all sorts of things. At least, that's been my experience with dedicated astrologers.

All I was talking about is judging the fundamental astrological concept of correspondence between personality and the shape of the universe by the antics of practitioners. And that is exactly what the paper critiqued. It is the same way people criticize the concept of God by tearing apart religion. In either case, the practices of believers have little to do with either the proposed principles of universe/personality correspondence or God.

I also found no indication that the astrologers tested, or their general methods, constitute fanaticism in the field of astrology-- that seems to be another strawman. (Perhaps Kerrie can weigh in with her opinion here.)

We'll just have to disagree. I thought they were focusing on the cult of astrology, which I do believe deserves criticism.

I'll grant that the paper does not definitively rule out some ambiguous, unspecified notion of some sort of correlation between personality traits and some wider features of the universe, but it does apply to the specific kinds of correlations postulated by astrology. This includes, e.g., your personal observation that Tauruses tend to behave in such-and-such a way. If that sort of observation held, one would think e.g. that astrologers would be able to match natal charts with the actually corresponding personality traits with at least some degree of success above chance, or that astrologers' professed degree of confidence in making astrological evaluations would at least weakly correlate with a higher degree of success-- but none of these held in the study. Modulo the specific claims and methods of existent astrology, it's not at all clear what substantive residue is left to constitute your general notion of correlation between personality and the universe, or why one should believe in such a thing in the first place.

Well, one can't convince someone focused on stats to sense generalities. You might admit that detail freaks who insist the universe is a only a collection of parts are often going to be at odds with generalists who sense there are underlying unities. Regarding my Taurus observations, remember I saw that before I knew anything about astrology. In fact, that's the only reason I took a look at astrololgy.

 

[LeonhardEuler]

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I said was that there was that you should not believe a theory that makes testably false predictions. Do you agree or is that closed-minded? Like I said people can keep on altering the definition of terms to make claims ever harder to disprove in experiment, but the theory becomes empty. If no experiment has ever demonstrated astrology, how is there even any difference between an expert and a crock?

 

[SGT]

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

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

I don't say there are cycles. Astrologers do! If the amplitude of those cycles is so tiny that they are indistinguishable from background noise, how do astrologers know they exist? Have they sensed their own cycles? How can they be sure I have cycles too?
I am not asking Kerrie to prove me that cycles exist. I only ask her to name them. Is that so difficult?

 

[Nylex]

Astrology sounds like BS to me.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I don't say there are cycles. Astrologers do! If the amplitude of those cycles is so tiny that they are indistinguishable from background noise, how do astrologers know they exist? Have they sensed their own cycles? How can they be sure I have cycles too?
I am not asking Kerrie to prove me that cycles exist. I only ask her to name them. Is that so difficult?

If I tell you you have to still your mind to hear something very very sublte, and if you try to figure out if my statement true by thinking about it, do you believe you ever will find any evidence of what I'm talking about? The cycles (if they exist) aren't tiny, they are subtle. Big difference.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What I said was that there was that you should not believe a theory that makes testably false predictions. Do you agree or is that closed-minded? Like I said people can keep on altering the definition of terms to make claims ever harder to disprove in experiment, but the theory becomes empty. If no experiment has ever demonstrated astrology, how is there even any difference between an expert and a crock?

I think there are two issues involved. You have several times "why should I believe it?" To me that means you haven't had any experiences which makes you suspect there might be some sort of correspondence between the shape of the universe and personality development. In that case, I agree with you. I don't believe much of anything myself I haven't personally experienced, and certainly a good test is to evaluate claims of theorists.

Yet I am not sure anyone has understood what I am defending. It isn't the "science" of astrology. I have a few friends into it very deeply, and I've never understood that (no offence Kerrie). I have never seen it predict well enough to warrant all that attention. To me, it's been a very sublte general sense of trendencies I see in some people born at certain times of the year.

I have no doubt I've seen/felt these tendencies. But I have also seen people completely unlike what their astrological chart would predict. My working hypothesis is, if there is some general correspondence (and correspondence is all I am willing admit) between the shape of the universe and the shape of personality, it is a weak correspondence that can be overshadowed by conditioning and personal choice.

For example, I have a lot of Virgo friends right now and to a person all of them are tight with money, some to the point of being cheap. But one friend, in his words, "fights being cheap every day of my life." If anything he sometimes overcompensates (at least in social situations), and another friend is what I would call "careful" with her money rather than cheap. So are all Virgos frugal or cheap? No way. Does that trait seem more common among people born under Virgo than other signs? I think I've noticed it.

Remember, we are only talking about personality. To me, that is a relatively superficial aspect of consciousness anyway (another reason not to give astrology, even if true, much attention). I think human consciousness goes a lot deeper, and there are therefore much stronger influences on conscious development. But precisely because personality is superficial is why I think our physical development, in a physical universe that is subject to the cycles of celetial bodies, might somehow develop in correspondence with those physical cycles. In other words, it is a physical thing, not a spiritual thing.

 

[SGT]

If I tell you you have to still your mind to hear something very very sublte, and if you try to figure out if my statement true by thinking about it, do you believe you ever will find any evidence of what I'm talking about? The cycles (if they exist) aren't tiny, they are subtle. Big difference.

If they are so subtle, how do astrologers know they exist? And if they are so subtle how can they influence our behavior?
In my opinion, since the known forces that act at a distance:gravity, electromagnetism and nuclear interactions can be dismissed as connecting planetary motions to human behavior, astrologers made up the idea of cycles. They can't even name one cycle and they certainly don't know how planetary cycles relate to the postulated human cycles.
Until someone can point me at least one such cycle, subtle as it is, I will give cycles the same credibility I give to your hypothetical smiling gene.

 

[Kerrie]

If no experiment has ever demonstrated astrology, how is there even any difference between an expert and a crock?

In order to experiment with astrology, you must learn how it works thoroughly first. This can take considerable time. And yes, there have been "experiments" with astrology, just look at the Mars effect.

What can you tell me about how astrology works? What do you truly understand about it?

 

[Kerrie]

Remember, we are only talking about personality. To me, that is a relatively superficial aspect of consciousness anyway (another reason not to give astrology, even if true, much attention). I think human consciousness goes a lot deeper, and there are therefore much stronger influences on conscious development. But precisely because personality is superficial is why I think our physical development, in a physical universe that is subject to the cycles of celetial bodies, might somehow develop in correspondence with those physical cycles. In other words, it is a physical thing, not a spiritual thing.

Very good point Les...I think some folks here think that those who understand astrology necessarily believe that astrology is the underlying factor in everything. No, I don't believe that, but I do believe it is one factor in a general scheme of things.

As an example, the 3 week span of July 22 to August 15 Mercury "was in retrograde". The planet gives the optical illusion of going backwards when really it is just a part of its orbit traveling around the sun to our perspective. This illusion happens roughly 3 times a year. What generally tends to happen I find is there are more problems with communications modes-My boss's computer crashed completely during this time, we couldn't get our DSL at work to function correctly, my car began to make a noise which concerns me. Issues like these seem to be more pronounced and frequent during this time. One experiement I wish would be done is the rate of divorce of those who marry during this time, many I have known who divorce seem to have been married during the Mercury Retrograde.

Also during the Mercury Retrograde that is very significant to me (and this is all in the thread link I provided) is President Bush was elected in 2000 and we had the huge fiasco of counting ballots-another example of a communication fiasco. Mercury was in the sign of Scorpio during this time, which is a sign traditionally represented by power and control.

When I see events like these happening, I see a correlation or REFLECTION of cycles that seem to repeat themselves between the events and choices of humans to the placements and aspects of celestial bodies within our solar system. Subtle they are to those who are untrained to notice it, but speak volumes to those paying attention.

If the amplitude of those cycles is so tiny that they are indistinguishable from background noise, how do astrologers know they exist? Have they sensed their own cycles? How can they be sure I have cycles too?

Read above. Not having a clue about how real astrology works will make you unaware of the correlations.

 

[inha]

oh man.. this just reminded me of a brilliant alternative to astrology that was developed by skeptic from Helsinki: sporalogy (spora is Helsinki slang for a tram). Since the trams in Helsinki exert a greater gravitational force on people here than pretty much every stellar object except for the moon it's reasonable to think that instead of the stars and planets our traits are decided by the locations of the trams in Helsinki at the moment of one's birth instead of the stars and planets.

 

[Kerrie]

oh man.. this just reminded me of a brilliant alternative to astrology that was developed by skeptic from Helsinki: sporalogy (spora is Helsinki slang for a tram). Since the trams in Helsinki exert a greater gravitational force on people here than pretty much every stellar object except for the moon it's reasonable to think that instead of the stars and planets our traits are decided by the locations of the trams in Helsinki at the moment of one's birth instead of the stars and planets.

sure, the tram has an effect on those who choose to ride it, but the celestial objects will reflect more tendencies in me then a tram thousands of miles away ...so your skeptic obviously is ignorant in how astrology works, thus a misinformed skeptic what a sad waste of time.

 

[selfAdjoint]

celestial objects will reflect more tendencies in me then a tram thousands of miles away

You think so? The trams are a maximum of 24,000 miles away (diameter of earth) while the nearest planet, Mars at opposition, is some 50,000,000 miles away. The nearest star, according to my arithmetic, is 2.5 X 10^15 miles away.

 

[Kerrie]

You think so? The trams are a maximum of 24,000 miles away (diameter of earth) while the nearest planet, Mars at opposition, is some 50,000,000 miles away. The nearest star, according to my arithmetic, is 2.5 X 10^15 miles away.

the celestial objects carry much more mass then a tram, making up for the distance...

 

[unggio]

for me I've found the asian zodiac (12 animals) relatively correct in its description of me. give it a quick read to see if it corresponds with your personality.

i don't know why it really works though. i get along best with people that are 4 years older or 4 years younger than myself.
your animal depends on the year you were born.

http://www.chinavoc.com/zodiac/

 

[LeonhardEuler]

I think there are two issues involved. You have several times "why should I believe it?" To me that means you haven't had any experiences which makes you suspect there might be some sort of correspondence between the shape of the universe and personality development. In that case, I agree with you. I don't believe much of anything myself I haven't personally experienced, and certainly a good test is to evaluate claims of theorists.

Yet I am not sure anyone has understood what I am defending. It isn't the "science" of astrology. I have a few friends into it very deeply, and I've never understood that (no offence Kerrie). I have never seen it predict well enough to warrant all that attention. To me, it's been a very sublte general sense of trendencies I see in some people born at certain times of the year.

I have no doubt I've seen/felt these tendencies. But I have also seen people completely unlike what their astrological chart would predict. My working hypothesis is, if there is some general correspondence (and correspondence is all I am willing admit) between the shape of the universe and the shape of personality, it is a weak correspondence that can be overshadowed by conditioning and personal choice.

For example, I have a lot of Virgo friends right now and to a person all of them are tight with money, some to the point of being cheap. But one friend, in his words, "fights being cheap every day of my life." If anything he sometimes overcompensates (at least in social situations), and another friend is what I would call "careful" with her money rather than cheap. So are all Virgos frugal or cheap? No way. Does that trait seem more common among people born under Virgo than other signs? I think I've noticed it.

Remember, we are only talking about personality. To me, that is a relatively superficial aspect of consciousness anyway (another reason not to give astrology, even if true, much attention). I think human consciousness goes a lot deeper, and there are therefore much stronger influences on conscious development. But precisely because personality is superficial is why I think our physical development, in a physical universe that is subject to the cycles of celetial bodies, might somehow develop in correspondence with those physical cycles. In other words, it is a physical thing, not a spiritual thing.

OK. I think we can both settle on most of that.

 

[SGT]

You think so? The trams are a maximum of 24,000 miles away (diameter of earth) while the nearest planet, Mars at opposition, is some 50,000,000 miles away. The nearest star, according to my arithmetic, is 2.5 X 10^15 miles away.

Nitpick: 24000 miles is the circumference of Earth. The diameter is approximately 7600 miles.
Anyway, sporalogy is supposed to link trams in Helsinki to newborns in the same town. I don't know how big is Helsinki, but I doubt any tram would be at more them 10km from any child.
Some astrologers claim that, since the human body consists of 75% salt water, we have an internal ocean, which is subjected to tidal effects from celestial bodies.
If the dimension of the body subjected to the tide is small compared to the distance to the body originating the effect, this effect is inversely proportional to the cube of the distance.
A 20 ton tram distant 200 m from a 50cm baby would cause a tidal effect greater than the Sun, Moon and the 8 planets.
A tram 10 km distant will exceed the effect of all planets. Only the Sun and the Moon have greater effects.
Besides, trams have cyclic patterns, as do the planets, so the cycle theory is also valid for trams.
In my opinion sporalogy has scientific foundations at least as good as astrology.

 

[Tony11235]

Nitpick: 24000 miles is the circumference of Earth. The diameter is approximately 7600 miles.
Anyway, sporalogy is supposed to link trams in Helsinki to newborns in the same town. I don't know how big is Helsinki, but I doubt any tram would be at more them 10km from any child.
Some astrologers claim that, since the human body consists of 75% salt water, we have an internal ocean, which is subjected to tidal effects from celestial bodies.
If the dimension of the body subjected to the tide is small compared to the distance to the body originating the effect, this effect is inversely proportional to the cube of the distance.
A 20 ton tram distant 200 m from a 50cm baby would cause a tidal effect greater than the Sun, Moon and the 8 planets.
A tram 10 km distant will exceed the effect of all planets. Only the Sun and the Moon have greater effects.
Besides, trams have cyclic patterns, as do the planets, so the cycle theory is also valid for trams.
In my opinion sporalogy has scientific foundations at least as good as astrology.

The "Oh we're made of water and the moon affects the tides, so why wouldn't we be affected by the moon?" is the most common thing I hear from astrologists and astrology believers to defend their case. It's pretty funny actually.

 

[LeonhardEuler]

As an example, the 3 week span of July 22 to August 15 Mercury "was in retrograde". The planet gives the optical illusion of going backwards when really it is just a part of its orbit traveling around the sun to our perspective. This illusion happens roughly 3 times a year. What generally tends to happen I find is there are more problems with communications modes-My boss's computer crashed completely during this time, we couldn't get our DSL at work to function correctly, my car began to make a noise which concerns me. Issues like these seem to be more pronounced and frequent during this time. One experiement I wish would be done is the rate of divorce of those who marry during this time, many I have known who divorce seem to have been married during the Mercury Retrograde.

Also during the Mercury Retrograde that is very significant to me (and this is all in the thread link I provided) is President Bush was elected in 2000 and we had the huge fiasco of counting ballots-another example of a communication fiasco. Mercury was in the sign of Scorpio during this time, which is a sign traditionally represented by power and control.

When I see events like these happening, I see a correlation or REFLECTION of cycles that seem to repeat themselves between the events and choices of humans to the placements and aspects of celestial bodies within our solar system. Subtle they are to those who are untrained to notice it, but speak volumes to those paying attention.

Kerrie, I don't want to fight with you, but I think you need to think about what your saying here. You must realize that this doesn't make sense. You attack me for not being sufficiently open to both sides, but you yourself are demonstrating quite a bit of rigidness. With this quote, you seem to be heading down the path of "My story trumps your statistics". Be careful not to cherrypick data. Have you ever had trouble with your car while Mercury was not in recession? In a three week span you listed three events with links, some of them tenuous, to trouble with communication modes. Three days ago my internet connection went out. Last week my cell phone ran out of batteries. Do you see how easy this is to do? If you were activly looking for things that contradicted the predictions of astrology, I'm sure you could have come up with a long list as well. You seem to be searching for events that correlate with astrology, while dismissing those events that don't as manifestations of the weakness of this correlation. I am not trying to fight with you, but I think you need to examine why you believe astrology. You may find that the reasons are not good enough. There is nothing wrong with changing your opinion. I once heard someone say "If you haven't changed your opinion on one matter or another in the past year, check your pulse."

 

[Kerrie]

Read the link I provided, then we can chat more.

 

[Kerrie]

The "Oh we're made of water and the moon affects the tides, so why wouldn't we be affected by the moon?" is the most common thing I hear from astrologists and astrology believers to defend their case. It's pretty funny actually.

Care to name who these "astrologists" are?

 

[Kerrie]

In my opinion sporalogy has scientific foundations at least as good as astrology.

You have a syndrome I call "Selective Reading". Reputable astrologists admit it is not a science. Stop trying to compare it to that.

A quote from what I would consider a reputable astrologist:

As you know from the article on the history of Astrology, Astrology has had a rather rocky relationship with western civilization. The future of astrology is, not surprisingly, a topic of great interest to most astrologers, although no one can truly predict what it will be. One thing, however is certain: Astrology will not occupy the same role in our lives today as it did in its heyday.

Astrology originated as a tool to help us to better understand and adjust to the numerous uncertainties in life. While life may be just as uncertain today as it was in the middle ages, we have other ways of answering our fundamental questions. In the middle ages, it was common practice to consult astrologers for information on whether ones ship had arrived safely (for example). Today, we are able to find our answers with a simple phone call.

In the middle ages, physicians relied on astrology to help diagnose and treat their patients, and at the time, it was the most accurate diagnostic tool available. Interesting as medical astrology is, today we’re more likely to rely on scientific tools for diagnosis and treatment. We live much longer, healthier lives today, and illnesses that would be life threatening in the 17th century barely phase us today.

Remember: up until the 20th Century, Astrology was used entirely for prediction. The idea that a birth chart could be used to understand an individual’s personality and behavior patterns is comparatively brand new.

Astrology’s popularity is certainly on the rise, however. While the majority of the population may dismiss Astrology as the daily horoscope listings, the Sun Sign columns are ultimately responsible for making people aware of Astrology. The real question is how can Astrology contribute to modern society.

Unquestionably, Astrology makes its most significant contribution today as a counseling tool. Astrology can help us to gain a more complete understanding of ourselves and of others. Astrology and psychology share many common ideas; Carl Jung in particular incorporated astrological symbolism into his exploration of the unconscious.
Another relatively new branch of Astrology is Financial Astrology. Financial Astrologers focus on investment cycles, analyzing planetary transits and their relationship to changes in the stock market and other financial arenas.

I don’t see Astrology shaking off the “entertainment” stigma anytime soon; however, the more people that discover the true breadth and scope of true Astrology, the more quickly the general perception will change.

Kevin Burke

Note the bold type, perhaps that will get my point (made several times) across.

 

[Tony11235]

Care to name who these "astrologists" are?

I don't mean famous well known astrologists. A few of my parent's friends happen to be astrologists, and I talk to them once in a while. I don't mean to say that all astrologists say this. I've just happened to encounter that statement by quite a few people, including non-astrologists.

 

[SGT]

Read the link I provided, then we can chat more.

Originally Posted by Tony11235
The "Oh we're made of water and the moon affects the tides, so why wouldn't we be affected by the moon?" is the most common thing I hear from astrologists and astrology believers to defend their case. It's pretty funny actually.

Care to name who these "astrologists" are?

From the link you provided:

I think of it more as an art than a science.
Considering the pure physical level, the astrology is partly justified by the gravitational influence of the stars, particularly the Moon and the Sun. These ones indeed notably produce "tide effects" on the Earth, effects that have some repercussions on the terrestrial life beings, perhaps because of the water they contain: the Sun acts on the thyroid and on the pulmonary metabolisms; the Moon on the women menstruation and on the vegetables metabolism for example. But the gravitation is not at all enough sufficient, because inappropriate, to explain the more subtle sidereal influences such as the psychological ones. The real foundation of the astrology probably lies in occult or obscured following facts:

The individual, thanks to its subtle bodies (notably the "etheric", "astral" and mental ones) is a part of the etheric body of the humanity.
The humanity is a part of the etheric body of the planet.
The Earth is a part of the solar system etheric body.
The solar system is a part of the galaxy etheric body, and itself is a part of the etheric body of the universe.

Taken from; http://perso.wanadoo.fr/heracliongb/astronom.htm

Excellent Boulderhead! You have done it again! I suggest everyone read this link BH provided before arguing for or against astrology any further...by the way, I added this page to my favorites~

 

[Kerrie]

Thank you for reading the link. I know it's a long one, however it contains some really good input, thus I use it anytime someone wants to discuss it. As you can see it's been on the forum for quite awhile now. And I see Boulderhead (a dearly missed member) provided you with the answers you needed-names of these cycles. My focus on astrology is more on the interpretations of it.

Again, I see astrology more of a counseling tool then one that has definitive answers that are science based. I am unsure why you are so set on trying to prove/disprove the link of science and astrology. If you want any kind of REAL link to the two, learn to read an ephemeris-it is a factual table of where planets are at a given time that astrologists use when calculating a chart, whether it be a natal chart or horary one.

The chart is an actual map, it is based on astronomical positions of planets in accordance to the earth. The interpretations of these placements of the planets are subjective to a degree-the more one understands the celestial interactions/cycles, the more one is going to recognize habits and tendencies of the person being studied. Some people don't "fit" their chart, and this is where I feel experiences and environment play their role in a person's life. We are not "robots according to our astrological chart" certainly, but the chart does give some background to who we can be in a basic sense.

Ultimately, I believe free will in choosing who we are and what we do is the final indicator of what we become-just like the person who has alcoholism in their family makes the choice to take on that habit or not.

 

[SGT]

Thank you for reading the link. I know it's a long one, however it contains some really good input, thus I use it anytime someone wants to discuss it. As you can see it's been on the forum for quite awhile now. And I see Boulderhead (a dearly missed member) provided you with the answers you needed-names of these cycles. My focus on astrology is more on the interpretations of it.

The cycles he named are all bogus. The Sun has no influence on thyroid or pulmonary metabolisms. Sunlight has effect on the production of vitamin D and calcium fixation. But this happens to all human beings, independent of their moment of birth, so does not apply to astrology.
As I mentioned before and Moonbear confirmed, there is no correlation between women's menstrual cycle and the Moon. In the same way the Moon has no measurable influence on vegetables metabolism.
I only quoted Boulderhead's post because you asked for the name of an astrologer who made correlation between tides and human beings.
Anyway, even if those cycles were not bogus, I am asking for longer duration cycles, compatible with planetary orbits.

 

[Kerrie]

The cycles he named are all bogus. The Sun has no influence on thyroid or pulmonary metabolisms. Sunlight has effect on the production of vitamin D and calcium fixation. But this happens to all human beings, independent of their moment of birth, so does not apply to astrology.
As I mentioned before and Moonbear confirmed, there is no correlation between women's menstrual cycle and the Moon. In the same way the Moon has no measurable influence on vegetables metabolism.
I only quoted Boulderhead's post because you asked for the name of an astrologer who made correlation between tides and human beings.
Anyway, even if those cycles were not bogus, I am asking for longer duration cycles, compatible with planetary orbits.

Since you make this claim, please provide your proof. I have found many references to say that the menstrual cycle and the moon have some correlation. I question your title of "professor" at this point. Also, what's the point in continuing to debate this? Who are you trying to convince of it's invalidity? If you must have the last word, here you go. I am done since I don't find your intent to be sincere any longer.

 

[inha]

Most women have their periods for 2-5 days a month, right? So naturally the moons period is roughly equal to the menstrual cycle for many women. Does that prove there's any correlation? Absolutely not. Does that prove anything at all? Absolutely not. My clock ticks 60 times a minute. Many people have a rest heart rate of 60. Is there a correlation between their heart rates and my clock?

 

[Kerrie]

the length of the moon cycle through the 360 degree ecliptic is generally the same length as the full cycle of a woman's menstrual cycle, not just the menses part. it doesn't sound like you quite understand exactly what the menstrual cycle entails from your post above.

our seasons also correlate as to when each cardinal sign begins-Aries for spring (approx 3/21), Cancer for summer (approx 6/21), Libra for autumn (approx 9/21), and Capricorn for winter (approx 12/21)...

the moon moves through all 12 signs each calendar month, once it has made one revolution through all of them, it is a new calendar month.

the sun completes a full revolution through each 12 sun signs, each lasting approx 30 days (or degrees), thus equalling around 365 days a year (or 360 degrees approx for a full circle).

our calendar is based very similar to these cycles, astrologists use these cycles to chart points. these are facts and cannot be debated. if you wish to debate anything, it needs to be the interpretations of these aspects, in which one will need to have a solid basis of how these interpretations are made.

 

[selfAdjoint]

the length of the moon cycle through the 360 degree ecliptic is generally the same length as the full cycle of a woman's menstrual cycle, not just the menses part. it doesn't sound like you quite understand exactly what the menstrual cycle entails from your post above.

our seasons also correlate as to when each cardinal sign begins-Aries for spring (approx 3/21), Cancer for summer (approx 6/21), Libra for autumn (approx 9/21), and Capricorn for winter (approx 12/21)...

the moon moves through all 12 signs each calendar month, once it has made one revolution through all of them, it is a new calendar month.

the sun completes a full revolution through each 12 sun signs, each lasting approx 30 days (or degrees), thus equalling around 365 days a year (or 360 degrees approx for a full circle).

our calendar is based very similar to these cycles, astrologists use these cycles to chart points. these are facts and cannot be debated. if you wish to debate anything, it needs to be the interpretations of these aspects, in which one will need to have a solid basis of how these interpretations are made.

The trouble with these simple statements is that they are only very rough approximations: the moon doesn't go through the houses at a constant speed, women's mestrual cycles vary all over the lot, the number of spins the Earth makes in going around once in its orbit is apparently not an integer, and may not be a rational number, and so on. Forecasting the position of the Moon, for example, is a challenge that defeated Newton and has absorbed mathematicians ever since. It is in the last degree nontrivial.

I won't even go into the precession of the equinoxes or the problems of placing the houses in the winter time; I'm sure you've heard all that before. But the closer you look at the astronomical data, the more the astronomical part of astrology looks out-of-date.

 

[SGT]

Since you make this claim, please provide your proof.

I make no claim. Boulderhead made the claim. ask him to provide proof of the correlation.

I have found many references to say that the menstrual cycle and the moon have some correlation.

Could you please cite some of those references? Does your own period last exactly 29.53 days every month?

I question your title of "professor" at this point.

I am a professor, with no quotes and I don't care if you believe it or not. Of course this does not make me an authority in every subject and I have never claimed that. I don't know why you are mentioning it.

Also, what's the point in continuing to debate this? Who are you trying to convince of it's invalidity? If you must have the last word, here you go. I am done since I don't find your intent to be sincere any longer.

If you are willing to have recourse to personal insults, I agree with you. You should quit the debate.

 

[Kerrie]

I make no claim. Boulderhead made the claim. ask him to provide proof of the correlation.

Could you please cite some of those references? Does your own period last exactly 29.53 days every month?

Do you not know the whole cycle lasts 28 +/- days? It's not just the period, it's the whole cycle. Please do some reading up on it, as this is not a biology forum. As a professor, I would think you would know something about a woman's menstrual cycle that does last approx 28 days.

The cycles he named are all bogus. The Sun has no influence on thyroid or pulmonary metabolisms. Sunlight has effect on the production of vitamin D and calcium fixation. But this happens to all human beings, independent of their moment of birth, so does not apply to astrology.

You made these claims, and some are true, but you say the cycles BH named are bogus. According to who then? And do you keep forgetting that astrology is used as a counseling tool and not a way to determine what a person is? Again, selective reading. You refuse to acknowledge certain points, yet are quick to jump on the ones you are only comfortable discussing. How many times do I need to state that astrology is not a science? So why do you insist on comparing it to such? Especially when you have done little research on what it really is?

The trouble with these simple statements is that they are only very rough approximations: the moon doesn't go through the houses at a constant speed, women's mestrual cycles vary all over the lot, the number of spins the Earth makes in going around once in its orbit is apparently not an integer, and may not be a rational number, and so on.

Yes, I had already admitted that these cycles are general, but our calendar is loosely based upon it.

 

[SGT]

Do you not know the whole cycle lasts 28 +/- days? It's not just the period, it's the whole cycle. Please do some reading up on it, as this is not a biology forum. As a professor, I would think you would know something about a woman's menstrual cycle that does last approx 28 days.

I have already said in a previous post that women's menstrual cycle last 28 days on average, with variation from woman to woman and from cycle to cycle for the same woman.
If there was synchronicity, the average should be 29.53 days, the length of lunar cycle, for all women. Of course there could be variations for each woman: one cycle with 29 days, the next with 30, but the mean should be 29.53.
More, unless you use the anthropic principle that the Universe was made for human beings, the same would be true for the menstrual cycle of all mammal females.

You made these claims, and some are true, but you say the cycles BH named are bogus. According to who then? And do you keep forgetting that astrology is used as a counseling tool and not a way to determine what a person is? Again, selective reading. You refuse to acknowledge certain points, yet are quick to jump on the ones you are only comfortable discussing. How many times do I need to state that astrology is not a science? So why do you insist on comparing it to such? Especially when you have done little research on what it really is?

Wich claims have a made? And what has counseling to do with physiologic issues like menstrual cycles or metabolism.
I accept that people can profit from the counseling given by astrologers. Most, if not all, suggestions are sound and could be given to any person, no matter their time of birth.

Yes, I had already admitted that these cycles are general, but our calendar is loosely based upon it.

Certainly the year is based in the translation of Earth around the Sun and the months have approximately the length of the lunar cycles, with adaptations in order to fit 12 months in a 365 1/4 days year. But calendar is a human convention and has nothing to do with the stars. The only relevant thing is that the seasons of the year are dependent of the position of Earth relative to the Sun. They exist because Earth's axis is tilted relative to the ecliptic and not to some supernatural effect of the apparent position of the Sun against the background of the Zodiac constellations.

 

[Kerrie]

I have already said in a previous post that women's menstrual cycle last 28 days on average, with variation from woman to woman and from cycle to cycle for the same woman.
If there was synchronicity, the average should be 29.53 days, the length of lunar cycle, for all women. Of course there could be variations for each woman: one cycle with 29 days, the next with 30, but the mean should be 29.53.

For many women, 28 days isn't the average actually. I am assuming you are male, otherwise you would understand that a woman's cycle easily varies. No other animal however has a cycle this close to the moon. We aren't talking absolute exacts here, as you keep forgetting. Human cycles and celestial cycles do seem to have a similar correlation, astrology doesn' require them to be exact. So if this is all your disputing, no one is disputing with you.

Wich claims have a made? And what has counseling to do with physiologic issues like menstrual cycles or metabolism.
I accept that people can profit from the counseling given by astrologers. Most, if not all, suggestions are sound and could be given to any person, no matter their time of birth.

You made the claim that BH's names of cycles are bogus. Astrologists can look at a chart, see pychological issues that repeat over and over (cycles) and advise the person if they are unaware of why they choose to do things that continue to put them in an undesirable situation. Celestial and human cycles (whether they be psychological or physiological) will happen regardless.

But calendar is a human convention and has nothing to do with the stars. The only relevant thing is that the seasons of the year are dependent of the position of Earth relative to the Sun. They exist because Earth's axis is tilted relative to the ecliptic and not to some supernatural effect of the apparent position of the Sun against the background of the Zodiac constellations.

The human calendar is still based on the positions of our planets. If you actually did some (unbiased) reading on astrology, you will find a lot more astronomy then you realize.

I can tell you have an engineer's mind, needing exacts and such. That's great in certain circumstances, but not necessary in all-especially when it comes to human psychology.

 

[SGT]

For many women, 28 days isn't the average actually. I am assuming you are male, otherwise you would understand that a woman's cycle easily varies. No other animal however has a cycle this close to the moon. We aren't talking absolute exacts here, as you keep forgetting. Human cycles and celestial cycles do seem to have a similar correlation, astrology doesn' require them to be exact. So if this is all your disputing, no one is disputing with you.

I have already said that not any woman have the same average. But the average of all women is nearly 28 days and I have also said that the cycles of any individual woman varies. But in order to have correlation, the averages should coincide in the long term. Since they don't, there is no correlation. And even if there was correlation, there is a great distance between correlation and causality.
But, supposing there is a correlation, why are other mammals not influenced by the Moon? Is intelligence required for astral influence?

You made the claim that BH's names of cycles are bogus. Astrologists can look at a chart, see pychological issues that repeat over and over (cycles) and advise the person if they are unaware of why they choose to do things that continue to put them in an undesirable situation. Celestial and human cycles (whether they be psychological or physiological) will happen regardless.

I don't care for the naming of the cycles. I said they are bogus because they don't exist. Before you challenge my affirmation, I asked an endocrinologist about the effect of the Sun on thyroid and lungs and she said those effects don't exist.

The human calendar is still based on the positions of our planets. If you actually did some (unbiased) reading on astrology, you will find a lot more astronomy then you realize.

I don't dispute that. The ancients started studying the movement of planets in order to know the time for planting and harvesting. Later they attributed magical properties to the planets and linked them to their gods. From that, the hypothesis of influence in human fate was a small step away.
Only very recently astrology and astronomy have been separated, in the same way that western medicine has been separated from magical incantations.

I can tell you have an engineer's mind, needing exacts and such. That's great in certain circumstances, but not necessary in all-especially when it comes to human psychology.

I don't claim to be an expert in human psychology. I only contest that it could be influenced by the pattern of planets at the instant of birth.
By the way, what is the real instant of birth? The instant the child exits the womb? The instant the umbilical cord is cut? The instant of the first breath? Or the instant the OB looks for the watch and pronounces that to be the instant of birth. In the several minutes between those events the Earth has rotated a little and a planet which was below the horizon may now be visible

 

[Kerrie]

I believe your last questions are answered in the Physics of Astrology thread.

You forget too that, although an endocrinologist may have a great amount of education in their field, it doesn't necessarily mean there is more to discover in general when it comes to how everything is connected. From your posts, you seem to think that science is done progressing-everything we know now is all we will ever know. If that's the attitude every "scientist" took, we would still be in the dark ages. Perhaps there are some things science cannot prove-as science is the human beings way of understanding our world, and we are not perfect.

And, again, if you had read the link, you would know that astroloy also doesn't claim to have the planets INFLUENCE us, rather it REFLECTS our tendencies. There is quite a difference. The REFLECTION is there because ultimately, life and celestial bodies are made of the same matter when broken down, the same energy (gravity perhaps?)that motivates life and our will, also motivates the movements of the planets. Can we prove this? No. Perhaps because our science hasn't progressed to that point? Very possible. It's extremely close minded to state that "there is no proof, thus it doesn't exist". Well, that is exactly the same attitude that was had when we thought the Earth was flat too.

As for the "instant" of birth, technically, astrologists would use the moment the child takes their first breath as they are then a person completely on their own. The time of course could be skewed because the clock is off by a few minutes. Does that completely matter? Most of the time, no. Astrological aspects can still be interpreted the same from minute to minute, in some instances it is very helpful to know the exact minute as in the case of my husband-at the time of his birth, the moon changed signs, approx 5 minutes before he was born. His mother swears by the time he was born, so with that, I have studied his tendencies that deal with his emotions and lean toward his mom being correct in the time of his birth. Will I ever know 100%? Of course not, but it's not a big deal, as we have a general idea within 5 degrees of the 360 degree natal chart of where the moon was at the time of his birth.

Again, if you think the astrology is a science, and you think the planets actually INFLUENCE us, then you have serious misconceptions about it, and are doomed to believe it is invalid. If you also think that our current version of science in this day and age explains everything, then being so close-minded will cut you off on learning a great deal more. Some members here are open to the possibility of it, maybe because there is a certain awe and wonder when you realize we are a part of our universe, and separate from it. The law of correspondences states, as above, so below, as within, so without, as the soul, so the universe. If you can understand the meaning behind this, that is what astrology is all about.

 

[SGT]

I agree with you that science does not know everything about the Universe and I believe it will never know. This does not mean that any non scientific idea is true and that someday a scientist will be able to prove its validity.
You have pointed yourself that people used to believe in the unscientific ideas that the Earth was flat. immobile and the center of the Universe. Some fundamentalist christians still believe that the Universe was created by God with the single purpose of being inhabited by some intelligent animals living in a small planet, orbiting a small star in the limit of one of hundreds of billions of galaxies.
May be astrology is a valid concept, even if all attempts to test its validity have come with negative results, but to believe it is a question of faith, not of evidence.
You mention a law of correspondences. You should talk about the hypothesis of correspondences. An hypothesis becomes a theory if it can make predictions about the outcome of experiments. If the experiments confirm the predictions beyond a reasonable doubt, then the theory becomes a law.
Since you admit that astrology can't even make predictions, it is not even a theory, even less a law.

 

[LeonhardEuler]

Can we prove this? No. Perhaps because our science hasn't progressed to that point? Very possible. It's extremely close minded to state that "there is no proof, thus it doesn't exist". Well, that is exactly the same attitude that was had when we thought the Earth was flat too.

Maybe, but it is even more closed-minded to say there is no real evidence, but it still must be true.

Science progresses, true. Can astrology progress? If a book on astrology says this constellation is a sign of that, and then some other astrologer comes along and says "No, it's a sign of the opposite thing.", then what reason would we have to believe one over the other? If these correlations can't be detected by experiment they are all equally valid points.

 

[Kerrie]

May be astrology is a valid concept, even if all attempts to test its validity have come with negative results, but to believe it is a question of faith, not of evidence.
You mention a law of correspondences. You should talk about the hypothesis of correspondences. An hypothesis becomes a theory if it can make predictions about the outcome of experiments. If the experiments confirm the predictions beyond a reasonable doubt, then the theory becomes a law.
Since you admit that astrology can't even make predictions, it is not even a theory, even less a law.

The only evidence I have seen personally of astrology is taking the time to learn, understand and study it with other people over the past 12 years. One who doesn't take the time to learn how it would work cannot verify it simply. And remember, we are not applying the scientific definition of theory to astrology because we aren't describing astrology as science, but as a tool into understanding basic tendencies. A tendency is what one is inclined to do, but not guaranteed to do. Scientific methods do not allow for this sometimes and sometimes not. Can human will and choice fit into a scientific method? No! Astrology is more of a philosophical topic to discuss, not a scientific one. How many times should I post that? Once you can understand this, we can debate no longer. You are debating apples, while I debate oranges.

Can astrology progress? If a book on astrology says this constellation is a sign of that, and then some other astrologer comes along and says "No, it's a sign of the opposite thing.", then what reason would we have to believe one over the other? If these correlations can't be detected by experiment they are all equally valid points.

If you read above, I already addressed the point that astrological interpretations are subjective, much like differing psychologists have various perspectives on why their patients make the choices they do.

Until a skeptic is willing to take a few months and learn how astrology works by reading and studying people in an objective manner, astrology will always appear "invalid" and the stigma it receives from people looking to make a quick dollar. It's like I said before-you cannot discuss division problems with a 3 year old because the child needs to learn the steps necessary in order to understand how it works. Without that progression of steps, it's silly to talk to them about it.

I feel that there is more of a will to be right of your part rather then to just take an honest and objective look at why it has been around for thousands of years and while it will continue to be studied by many. I can suggest to start out by having your own chart interpreted by a reputable astrologist, see what they have to say, you could very well be surprised. I have a basic sense of interpreting, and have surprised several skeptics without ever meeting them in person. Once I have done this, our debating usually stops.

http://www.astrologycom.com/astrol1.html

 

[Tony11235]

Kerrie, what form of astrology have you been referring to? You said that astrology does not predict. Yet I have been told by people that call themselves astrologers that there are some forms of astrology that claim to predict, up to precise moments. It just seems astrology as a field is inconsistent in its claims. I'm guessing your next words will probably be..."astrology does not make claims".

 

[LeonhardEuler]

The only evidence I have seen personally of astrology is taking the time to learn, understand and study it with other people over the past 12 years. One who doesn't take the time to learn how it would work cannot verify it simply. And remember, we are not applying the scientific definition of theory to astrology because we aren't describing astrology as science, but as a tool into understanding basic tendencies. A tendency is what one is inclined to do, but not guaranteed to do. Scientific methods do not allow for this sometimes and sometimes not. Can human will and choice fit into a scientific method? No! Astrology is more of a philosophical topic to discuss, not a scientific one. How many times should I post that? Once you can understand this, we can debate no longer. You are debating apples, while I debate oranges.




If you read above, I already addressed the point that astrological interpretations are subjective, much like differing psychologists have various perspectives on why their patients make the choices they do.

Until a skeptic is willing to take a few months and learn how astrology works by reading and studying people in an objective manner, astrology will always appear "invalid" and the stigma it receives from people looking to make a quick dollar. It's like I said before-you cannot discuss division problems with a 3 year old because the child needs to learn the steps necessary in order to understand how it works. Without that progression of steps, it's silly to talk to them about it.

I feel that there is more of a will to be right of your part rather then to just take an honest and objective look at why it has been around for thousands of years and while it will continue to be studied by many. I can suggest to start out by having your own chart interpreted by a reputable astrologist, see what they have to say, you could very well be surprised. I have a basic sense of interpreting, and have surprised several skeptics without ever meeting them in person. Once I have done this, our debating usually stops.

Psychology can progress because it does not insulate itself from experiment. If someone creates a theory that makes predictions of human behavior, and those predictions are observed to be false in experiment, the theory is discredited. Science can work on tendencies. With statistics we can use data obtained in experiment to support or refute the validity of predictions. Can human will and choice fit into a scientific method? Yes!

You keep telling me to study astrology, but I really and truly believe it is not necessary. It's like there is a mistake in the first step of a mathematical proof and your telling me to read the rest of it because it gets really complicated and you can't appreciate it by looking at the first step. In reality, though, no matter how much work went into the rest of the proof, the whole thing is useless if the first step is wrong. I know you will say that you are not making a proof, but merely an argument, and I respond to that by saying that an argument with a hole in the wrong spot is entirely useless. If all the conclusions you draw are predicated on the hole, then you might as well state the conclusion without the argument because the argument is useless now. All I am asking before I give astrology consideration is a reason to believe the predictions. I just want a first step in the argument before I throw away my money to an astrologer. Honestly, I find the whole suggestion that I have to study astrology for 3 years to debate with you kind of evasive. Can you just give me an outline of the "astrological method"? How is astrological truth obtained? If it is wrong how can it be refuted? (Not all of astrology, but say one particular prediction needs to be modified. How would you know?)

 

[Kerrie]

Kerrie, what form of astrology have you been referring to? You said that astrology does not predict. Yet I have been told by people that call themselves astrologers that there are some forms of astrology that claim to predict, up to precise moments. It just seems astrology as a field is inconsistent in its claims. I'm guessing your next words will probably be..."astrology does not make claims".

It does not predict because humans are not robots. If I told you that I saw in your chart that you have a tendency to look for relationships that give you security, does that mean you will choose to do so? If you had a history of heart disease in your family, does that doom you to it as well? Perhaps so if you CHOOSE to eat the right foods. Some astrologists I suppose use the terminology "predict", but I don't choose to use that word since astrology appreciates and acknowledges that we each have free will ultimately-the main reason why astrology cannot be considered scientific.

Can you just give me an outline of the "astrological method"? How is astrological truth obtained? If it is wrong how can it be refuted?

Astrological method to put simply: An astrologist uses an EPHEMERIS to calculate coordinate points of each planet for a given time and place. Those points are plotted on a 360 degree pie chart that is a representation of the Earth in relation to the position of the planets. Geometrical aspects are calculated between the planets. After studying and reading up on what others have studied, the astrologist can make a guess of tendencies of what these aspects might interpret about the person. As time goes on and more people are studied, the astrologist can see the same patterns of human tendencies with the same aspects. Of course, the astrologist doesn't guarantee that these tendencies will be prevalent when a certain aspect is found in the pie chart because again, human free will is ultimately our driving force. The pie chart is also split into 12 segments of 30 degree "houses" which also interpret to what area of life the aspect will most likely apply to. As for "astrological truth", I am not sure this is a term that is used, except for when we use an ephemeris to plot the points. An astronomer can easily verify that the points in an astrological chart are true. The aspects can be verified as truth. The interpretations of these placements are what is highly debated as truth, mostly because science doesn't allow room for human will, as it is not predictable or able to be controlled. Again, it goes back to the person with alcoholism in his family and his choice in becoming a heavy drinker or not. There is no scientific factor that will determine whether or not he will drink, it's a matter of what he chooses to do, but it will be much easier for him to fall into that pattern because of his genetic tendencies. Astrology will point out in the interpretations certain tendencies, will you choose to fall into those tendencies or learn to outgrow them? If your chart reflects you have a particular strength, will you utilize that strength?

You keep telling me to study astrology, but I really and truly believe it is not necessary.

Then our discussions are useless if you don't have a basic understanding of it. In order to understand the whys, you need to know the whats. If you believe it is not necessary, then you have already decided not to believe and would rather just debate the topic on an ignorant level.

 

[SGT]

You forget too that, although an endocrinologist may have a great amount of education in their field, it doesn't necessarily mean there is more to discover in general when it comes to how everything is connected.

So, you dismiss an endocrinologist knowledge about the functioning of the thyroid, because it contradicts the preconceived opinion of an astrology enthusiast and accuse skeptics of closedmindedness for dismissing the tenets of astrology for lack of evidence. Who is closedminded?

 

[Kerrie]

So, you dismiss an endocrinologist knowledge about the functioning of the thyroid, because it contradicts the preconceived opinion of an astrology enthusiast and accuse skeptics of closedmindedness for dismissing the tenets of astrology for lack of evidence. Who is closedminded?

re-read my post, i never dismissed any knowledge one would already hold, i stated there may be more to know. more selective reading...

 

[SGT]

re-read my post, i never dismissed any knowledge one would already hold, i stated there may be more to know. more selective reading...

Medical science is the product of research. Of course doctors don't know everything. Nobody does! But what makes you think that what they don't know is known by astrologers? What kind of evidence do astrologers have about the influence of the Sun on the thyroid that no medical research has revealed. More selective thinking.

 

[Kerrie]

Medical science is the product of research. Of course doctors don't know everything. Nobody does! But what makes you think that what they don't know is known by astrologers? What kind of evidence do astrologers have about the influence of the Sun on the thyroid that no medical research has revealed. More selective thinking.

well, since astrology is not a science and just taken in faith, evidence of what is claimed by astrologists isn't required. i keep repeating that astrology is not scientific, thus cannot fit into the scientific methods. are you trying to perceive it as a science?

 

[SpaceTiger]

It's scientifically feasible that the cycles of the moon could impact behavior, but not any of the other planets. Their influence on us is just too weak.

As for arguments claiming astrology can be lumped in with religion as just requiring "faith", one needs to be prepared to accept the philosophical implications of such a claim. Religion holds a nice place aside from science because most of its claims cannot be proven or disproven objectively (for example, the afterlife). Those that can be disproven, like the earth-centered universe, have long since been abandoned by the majority of religious folk. In astrology, unlike the sun-centered universe, the claims can only be proven or disproven statistically, and not on the individual level, but they can be disproven, provided you accept the following:

1. You are not special, in the sense that you don't defy the statistics.
2. You would measure the same thing if you did the same experiment.

If one denies the first thing, they're simply providing the scientific community with an alternative theory with an extra variable that allows astrology to apply to them. If one denies the second, then they're undercutting the basic assumptions that go into the scientific method (objectivity, universality, etc.). There are philosophical ways of doing this, but they would mostly involve some form of solipsism. If that's one's philosophy on life, that's fine, but there's really no point in trying to convince others of it, since there's no way to know whether or not they experience things in the same way. The same would apply to any argument that denies the validity of logic, since logic is essential for any form of communication to be meaningful.

 

[Kerrie]

It's scientifically feasible that the cycles of the moon could impact behavior, but not any of the other planets. Their influence on us is just too weak.

Where have I stated that the planets influence us? This is the biggest misconception people have of astrology. Astrology is defined (among the serious astrologists) as a study of cycles between the celestial bodies and human tendencies. One reflects the other, one does not INFLUENCE the other. Astrology is based on the assumption that all of life in the universe is connected in one form or another. What that connection is, the greatest mystery to us all perhaps.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Where have I stated that the planets influence us? This is the biggest misconception people have of astrology. Astrology is defined (among the serious astrologists) as a study of cycles between the celestial bodies and human tendencies. One reflects the other, one does not INFLUENCE the other.

Again, from a scientific standpoint, it would be virtually impossible to correlate the planetary cycles with human cycles without them directly influencing us. Astronomers can study the motion of the planets to very high precision and know almost exactly where they'll be at any given time. In other words, we know the cause of the planetary cycles, and it's mostly the sun and other planets. In order to produce a correlation (as you're claiming) between the planetary and human cycles, one needs one of the following things to occur:

- They share the same cause (or chain of causes).
- One influences the other (directly or indirectly).

If the former were the case, then one would still conclude that the celestial bodies were influencing people, since the cause of the planetary cycles is the sun and other planets themselves. If the latter were the case, then the only other alternative is that we influence the planets. This is also not feasible from a scientific standpoint.

So, in terms of science, I think you're stuck. There are still some philosophical outs, but it would be very hard to produce this with science.

 

[Kerrie]

So, in terms of science, I think you're stuck. There are still some philosophical outs, but it would be very hard to produce this with science.

Where did I state that Astrology is a science? I said it was a counseling tool. I have admitted umpteen times in this thread that interpretation of astrology is subjective and cannot be pinned to a science because human will to choose is an unpredictable and inable to be controlled. I can tell you haven't read this thread all that closely.