Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,911
So you have learnt something? That's always good.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
So you have learnt something? That's always good.
maybe you should be the first to clarify your reasoning on why it is not obvious Natal Charts are nonsense, considering that, as I said, they were based on the heavens as seen by people who thought stars were fixed on a celestial abode over a flat Earth.
It also works if your parents are astronomers; the positions of celestial bodies may have a significant effect on their availability, mood, and attention during your formative years
I am also certain that a celestial body like an asteroid, being discovered it will collide with Earth, may have some deep psychological impacts on everyone in the planet
Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
They make the process sound pretty complicated, but a test wouldn't need to test the complexities of the mechanism. It would only need to test the results.
About a decade ago, someone I knew at another forum had a friend of hers at that same forum do an astrological analysis on each of us, with particular attention to how it would mean a relationship between us would go. (Yes, for those of you who see this coming, she would proceed to get more stalkerish later, but the rest of that is not within this story.) The result was something like a dozen pages about how logical & analytical I am and how controlled by flighty emotionality she is, how she would always feel too coldly scrutinized and I would always feel too burdened by emotional demands & inexplicable outbursts. Somehow, she managed to find one thing or another about every single planet, star, angle, house, and movement there was, to always point to the same conclusions, every step of the way. This was done by someone who already knew both of us from interactions on the forum. I couldn't have asked for a more straightforward example of what it would look like if someone started with a conclusion and infused it into the process, using the system's complexity to come up with justifications for it while trying to make it sound to outsiders as if the flow had been backward. I was reminded of that test in which you give a bunch of people the same text and they all think it describes them in particular.
If the overall process doesn't produce accurate specific results that could have been wrong if applied to the wrong person, and do it independent of any prior knowledge of the person it's supposed to be about, then there's no more investigating to do about details like angles & planets & houses.
Last edited:
(Me on birth charts...)
(ephemeris library) -> (planet positions) -> (chart calculator) -> (astrological features)
True, but to get good statistics, one may need to do a lot of birth charts, and that's most conveniently done programmatically.
(ephemeris library) -> (planet positions) -> (chart calculator) -> (astrological features)
That's the Forer effect - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com -- that page contains a classic example of it.
Having learned how to do astrological charts myself, I can tell you what she would say.
There are only 12 sun signs, and the idea that all human beings can be divided into only 12 personality types is patently ridiculous. However, when you calculate a full chart including all the other planets as well as the ascendant, you have a much more sophisticated (complicated, intricate) picture. The calculations delineate not just the exact positions of all the planets and the ascendant, but all the aspects among them, each of which has a specific meaning. This all serves to make a fully calculated chart virtually unique.
That's the astronomer's basic rebuttal. However, it fails on several counts.
1. As mentioned, the twin problem. I am a (fraternal) twin, and was born 3 minutes before my brother. In that short a time frame, any mathematical differences in planetary locations are essentially meaningless. Certainly my brother and I are very much alike, but we have significant differences in character too, and not just because I'm female and he's male.
2. The specific "meanings" of the planets and aspects are too broad. If you have Saturn in the third house, that indicates delay or difficulty in education. This could be anything from being unable to afford college even though you really want to go, to having Down syndrome.
3. There are too many ways to explain facets of a person's character. For instance, Taurus is supposed to govern music, so musicians ought to have Sun in Taurus. Haha, many great ones don't. The astrologer will then say that the musical ability is because the person has Taurus as the ascendant, or a strong Taurus influence in the chart (meaning a lot of the planets are in Taurus even if the Sun isn't), or there is some combination of aspects that means the same thing.
4. The biggest problem for me is the precession of the equinoxes. The planets are no longer in the zodiac signs that astrology assigns to them. Therefore, though my astrological chart identifies me as a Libra, in fact the sun was in Virgo when I was born. Even if there are planetary vibrations affecting our behavior, they aren't the vibrations astrology says they are.
I don't know if it has been done, but I'd love to see a test that covered some specific character trait. For instance, can astrology pick out a serial killer? Or a suicide? What about the great villains of history such as Stalin and Hitler, do their charts have anything in common? I'd like to see analysis of these sorts of things. General personality correlation seems too vague to me.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,253
Or maybe not. Do you understand the burden of proof?
madurobob
Philosopher
yeah, I get that is the basic rebuttal, but it is a major moving of the goalposts. The basic problem with sun sign astrology is that there is simply no mechanism that would allow earth's position relative to the Sun to influence personality. Tossing in a few dozen more heavenly bodies does nothing to address this very basic problem of "how", and nothing from astrology data has given science reason to suspect there is any unknown "how".
I take that back. Its not even a moving of the goalposts, its a complete red herring - a smoke screen.
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,910
I pointed this out 30 years ago to an astological devotee. Without missing a beat, he said that's not what astrology is. It simply measures your fate the way a clock measures, but does not control, time.
This is a nice rhetorical device of skeptics, but has its limit. The first version I had heard was Carl Sagan in Cosmos (?) mentioning how the obstetrician at his birth had more gravitational influence on him than did Mars.
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
It's worth remembering that the people who invented astrology believed that the stars were points of lights on a crystal sphere and the planets were gods. It's only because we now know what the stars and the planets actually are that a mechanism by which astrology could work seems so unlikely. Its inventors would have had no such problems.
madurobob
Philosopher
Not entirely - I've highlighted the problem area.
If it "worked" we would have reliable data showing an unknown mechanism is at play that needs scientific inquiry to understand. Instead, what we get is something along the lines of "it works! See if your science can prove it doesn't". I'm sorry, but thats how religion works, not science.
Dr.Sid
Philosopher
Btw. are start considered in any kind of astrology ? I'm under impression it's all actually about planets.
AdamSK
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2014
- Messages
- 1,952
It's the movement of the planets against the backdrop of the constellations. So it involves the stars, because they form the frame of reference against which the solar system bodies appear to move.
Dr.Sid
Philosopher
I thought the signs are defined as 1/12 of the circle. Sure, there must be one single reference point, but that's it.
wasapi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 17,656
Oh please. Obviously everyone posting here must be Virgos with Capricorn rising. Or maybe it is the other way around. Whatever, that's why you are skeptical.
Really, I still know a small group of people who think that is true. There is no study, scientific or not, that would convince them otherwise.
Really, I still know a small group of people who think that is true. There is no study, scientific or not, that would convince them otherwise.
bytewizard
Master Poster
John Stossel once did a television program debunking astrology. He collected birth dates and times from all of the students in a college class and told them an astrologer would give each of them a detailed reading based on that information. Each student was presented privately with their reading and were then asked how accurate they thought the reading was. Some students previously were skeptical and others were believers, but after each student's reading, virtually EVERY student thought the astrologer nailed the reading for them.
Unfortunately, each student had received the same reading, one done based on the birth date and time of the notorious serial killer, Ed Kemper. The look on the students faces when presented with this information was classic.
Unfortunately, each student had received the same reading, one done based on the birth date and time of the notorious serial killer, Ed Kemper. The look on the students faces when presented with this information was classic.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat