perhaps not everything is lost for astrology

[Hokulele]

A veritable sandstorm of woo!

 

[fromdownunder]

Absolutely none.

So, are you also suggesting that all horoscopes prior to 1930 had to be incorrect, because Pluto's "influence" was unknown before then, or that Pluto has no influence in horoscopes whatsoever.

Just one more brief series of queries - What influence does the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud have on peoples individual horoscopes? Does anybody calculate these influences? Or have they simply not even bothered to find out what these two things are?

Norm

 

[Molinaro]

Ok, I have a question about the importance of birth times being accurate to the minute. My understanding is that such accuracy is needed so that the positions of astronomical entities can be accurately plotted on the sky.

This is important because of their 'influence' on the baby as it is born.

This importance on the position of the astronomical entities implies that this influence is directional. As was stated earlier in this thread, it is suposed that some kind of field saturates the cells of the baby and imprints a certain set of characteristics on the child.

Now, if the orientation of this field is so important, as suggested by the need for accurate time of birth, how is it that the orientation of the baby relative to the field is of no importance?

What is the difference between, say the moon, being at a certain position in the sky vs a couple degrees west, and the baby being in one orientation vs being rotated a few degrees?

For the positions of astronomical entities to matter it implies that the effect on the child is transmitted via a vector field. But how can the orientation of the child within the vector field be of no concern?

 

[Alice Shortcake]

I suppose I should be grateful to Aquila for answering my second question in a straightforward way, but I'm afraid his answers to my other two questions have left me even more confused...

 

[fagin]

If an astrologer had to give a definite description of the sign Capricorn, he or she would probably try and describe it using its ruling planet, Saturn, its symbolic animal in the Zodiac, the goat, its path on the Kabalistic Tree of Life (a mixture of Judaism and modern occult) and its tarot key, The Devil. Basically, the Capricorn energy is restrictive. On the highest spiritual level, the Saturn principle (represented by the black sphere shown on the Tree of Life in the linked ifdawn website is the part of consciousness/God which condenses light energy into physical matter. Capricorn is part of consciousness which is detectable by our senses. In the tarot key, the devil is holding up his hand as if to say "this is all there is". This world of the senses will manifest differently in different times of history, but the principle is eternal. The devil is the same as the one that Jesus was supposedly tempted by.

http://www.borndigital.com/tree/index.html



Absolutely none.



Your are right. But when planets transit those signs, the battle becomes more pronounced.

I'm quite happy about 'my' planet being Saturn - no doubt the coolest looking one, but am a bit perturbed about being the devil. I have few enough friends as it is; now I have to find some really evil ones?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Quote from Ben:No one cares about the number of "hits"; any random guesser will have "hits" to boast of. The difference between a guesser and a predictor is the ratio of hits to misses.

Quote from sthompson: What about all the astrologers who didn't predict that there would be election problems?

You both raise important points. But please consider this: The only other time in the history of U.S. elections that there has been a recall of votes (in the 1870s I think - I don't have the date with me but can verify it if anyone insists) was also when Mercury was retrograde. What can we deduce from this? It would be foolish to think that the two events were connected causaly, and even to think that there was a direct correlation between the two. It could quite easily have been chance. But when we combine these events with what the occult and myth side of astrology says that Mercury means, some students of astrology say to themselves, well, yes, this is worth looking at. It might be woo, but it is very interesting woo.

You still didn't address what Ben said. All you're doing is cherry picking successful predictions. How many total predictions were made in that same magazine? How many were right and how many were wrong?

Can you imagine if a drug was tested for safety and efficacy by giving it to a few hundred people but only counting the one person who reported no side effects and a positive outcome? Would you conclude from this that the drug is safe and effective?

 

[Aquila]

[Inigo Montoya voice]

I do not think that word [pseudo-science] means what you think it means.

[/Inigo Montoya voice]

OK, I'm back. Sorry if I don't address questions immediately, or in order.

Re pseudo-science. I had always thought that this term, meaning "false" science, had been given to astrology, and other subjects, by skeptics as a sort of derogatory insult. Personally, I am not insulted by it, but would rather call astrology a quasi- science or "as if" science, which admits that it is not an empirical science but gets rid of the misconception that astrologers are somehow pretenting to be scientists - they are not.

My point is that if skeptics term astrology a pseudo science or quasi science or whatever, because it is not based on any objective data or causal mechanism, then they should also call psychology a pseudo science or whatever, because much of it is also not based on objective data or a causal mechanism.

For example, we cannot see emotions or intelligence. We can examine the brain with a CT scan, or look at a person's blood under the microscope and see factors which correlate with certain subjective states, but as far as I know, no scientist has ever seen love or happiness or sadness. This is really no better than saying that love is situated in the heart chakra or that intellect is situated in the Mercury chakra.

 

[Aquila]

I'm quite happy about 'my' planet being Saturn - no doubt the coolest looking one, but am a bit perturbed about being the devil. I have few enough friends as it is; now I have to find some really evil ones?

Most Capricorns have the same reaction! But actually, the positive attribute of this part of consciousness is mirth; the figure in the tarot key is a mythical figure made up of bits and pieces of other animals - it is merely a creation of the human intellect and is only frightening or evil when we do not recognize it as such. The figures in the forground can quite easily remove their chains if they wanted to.

By the way, the Capricorns that I know are some of the nicest people around - and quite a few of them are skeptics. They have a good sense of humor.

 

[Aquila]

You still didn't address what Ben said. All you're doing is cherry picking successful predictions. How many total predictions were made in that same magazine? How many were right and how many were wrong?

I didin't address it because I, nor the astrolger in question, is tryng to prove anything statistically or win some monetary award by adhering to scientific criteria. I repeat, astrologers do not claim to be scientists and are not trying to beat the odds of probability.

Can you imagine if a drug was tested for safety and efficacy by giving it to a few hundred people but only counting the one person who reported no side effects and a positive outcome? Would you conclude from this that the drug is safe and effective?

If you are talking about psychiatric drugs, this is a moot point, because I would never even consider looking at the results to any such experiments, however big the sample size, or number of people who reported positive or negative results. The reason is that all such reports (what does "positive" or "negative" mean anyway?) are completely subjective - they mean nothing scientifically.

Even with non-psychiatric drugs, such as, for example, blood pressure medication, there are so many factors which can affect blood pressure, that it would be very difficult to design an experiement that ruled them all out.

 

[ben m]

For example, we cannot see emotions or intelligence. We can examine the brain with a CT scan, or look at a person's blood under the microscope and see factors which correlate with certain subjective states, but as far as I know, no scientist has ever seen love or happiness or sadness. This is really no better than saying that love is situated in the heart chakra or that intellect is situated in the Mercury chakra.

You're forgetting the most important difference: psychologists actually show the correlations. They show that patients who experienced A reported feeling C more often than patients who did not experience A. That shows a correlation between A and C.

Saying, "Look! Here are two A which occurred under B" does not show anything at all. That's not a correlation; it's incorrect to say you've found a correlation. You have to show that A occurs more often under B than under not-B, and that the difference is statistically significant. Please read the Wikipedia article on correlation and let us know how astrology uses this.

 

[Garrette]

I didin't address it because I, nor the astrolger in question, is tryng to prove anything statistically or win some monetary award by adhering to scientific criteria.

So aside from the internal inconsistencies of astrology, astrological readings and predictions are not distinguishable in any fashion from made up stuff?

I'm not asking this flippantly; it appears to be what you are saying.

I repeat, astrologers do not claim to be scientists

No one is requiring them to be.

It seems you object to counterarguments simply because they are based on a method approaching that of science. If we took the word "science" out of the debate, would it make a difference?

Your argument is that astrology seems to be true when we don't use science to support it. If my counterargument is that astrology doesn't seem true to me regardless if I use science or not, does that make it easier to swallow? Or does it serve, as it should, to demonstrate that your objection about science is misplaced?

and are not trying to beat the odds of probability.

So again it seems that astrology is indistinguishable from chance and made up stuff.

 

[ben m]

I would never even consider looking at the results to any such experiments, however big the sample size, or number of people who reported positive or negative results. The reason is that all such reports (what does "positive" or "negative" mean anyway?) are completely subjective - they mean nothing scientifically.

Ha ha! So, does Tylenol alleviate headaches? Does alcohol make people feel drunk? Does it hurt to get hit in the foot with a hammer? I guess we'll never know, because all we have is the patient "subjectively" reporting their feelings. Aquila, you are confused about the meaning of "subjective". There is a difference between "concrete", "subjective", and "mere opinion".

You should consider actually reading a study or two; I suspect you have some misconceptions about how they are run and what their conclusions mean.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Astrology does not work. It has no predictive power what-so-ever. If it did, astrologers would be rich and astrology would be a recognized science.

All tests of astrology have failed miserably. See:
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/what_do_you_mea.html
for a number of tests.

That anyone can believe in this nonsense leaves me boggled.

 

[Aquila]

So, are you also suggesting that all horoscopes prior to 1930 had to be incorrect, because Pluto's "influence" was unknown before then, or that Pluto has no influence in horoscopes whatsoever.

According to modern psychological astrology, the outer planets (beyond Saturn) Uranus, Neptune and Pluto were part of what pschologist Carl Jung called the "collective unconscious". It was only when they were discovered by astronomers that they became conscious.

Uranus was discovered in 1781, very near the time of the American and French revolutions. These historical events did not automatically mean that Uranus would be associated with revolution, individuality and freedom, but they mark the time in human evolution when these ideals were recognized en masse. If we look at individual horoscopes, the position of Uranus denotes the area of life (sign, house, degee, aspects) where the person expresses freedom, ingenuity, ability with technology. Negative aspects can sometimes mean eccentricity or anti-social behavior.

Neptune was discovered in 1846, very near the time that Karl Marx wrote his manifesto and aslo when anasthetics were discovered. Again, these events aren't the only reason that Neptune was made the ruler of Pisces, a sign which sees everything as connected on a subconscious level, and rules the non-matierial levels of consciousness such as the imagination and dreams, but again, this date marks the time when these concepts began to be recognized.

With Pluto, the biggest event that coincided with its discovery was the rise to power of Hitler and fascism. But also the Great Depression and the use of psychiatry for probing people's sub-conscious. Until then, Mars had been the sole ruler of the sign Scorpio, but we now also asign Pluto.

So, to answer your question, horoscopes before 1930 were still valid, but Pluto's symbolism wasn't so well understood before then. Of course the world still had power, secrecy and control maniacs before 1930 - we see these traits in the Bible and history. Kabbalists who wrote about the Tree of Life and later, the tarot (only drawn up in 1200), left spaces in the paths and in the tarot keys for when these projected planets would be discovered by astronomers.

Just one more brief series of queries - What influence does the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud have on peoples individual horoscopes? Does anybody calculate these influences? Or have they simply not even bothered to find out what these two things are?
Norm

The most recently discovered planet in the Kuiper (rhymes with Diaper) Belt is Eris, previously known as Xena. There is still speculation as to what Eris symbolizes but you can review an online discussion by astrologers about it at www.astro.com (go to the forum and do a search for "Eris"). I do not know anything about the Oort Cloud, but the above forum might also have some info if you do a search. Regards, Aquila

 

[Tanstaafl]

Ok, I have a question about the importance of birth times being accurate to the minute. My understanding is that such accuracy is needed so that the positions of astronomical entities can be accurately plotted on the sky.

This is important because of their 'influence' on the baby as it is born.

This importance on the position of the astronomical entities implies that this influence is directional. As was stated earlier in this thread, it is suposed that some kind of field saturates the cells of the baby and imprints a certain set of characteristics on the child.

Now, if the orientation of this field is so important, as suggested by the need for accurate time of birth, how is it that the orientation of the baby relative to the field is of no importance?

What is the difference between, say the moon, being at a certain position in the sky vs a couple degrees west, and the baby being in one orientation vs being rotated a few degrees?

For the positions of astronomical entities to matter it implies that the effect on the child is transmitted via a vector field. But how can the orientation of the child within the vector field be of no concern?

Now that's entirely unfair.

Bringing logic to a woo fight is like bringing an uzi to a pillow fight.

 

[Garrette]

According to modern psychological astrology, the outer planets (beyond Saturn) Uranus, Neptune and Pluto were part of what pschologist Carl Jung called the "collective unconscious". It was only when they were discovered by astronomers that they became conscious.

Uranus was discovered in 1781, very near the time of the American and French revolutions. These historical events did not automatically mean that Uranus would be associated with revolution, individuality and freedom, but they mark the time in human evolution when these ideals were recognized en masse. If we look at individual horoscopes, the position of Uranus denotes the area of life (sign, house, degee, aspects) where the person expresses freedom, ingenuity, ability with technology. Negative aspects can sometimes mean eccentricity or anti-social behavior.

Neptune was discovered in 1846, very near the time that Karl Marx wrote his manifesto and aslo when anasthetics were discovered. Again, these events aren't the only reason that Neptune was made the ruler of Pisces, a sign which sees everything as connected on a subconscious level, and rules the non-matierial levels of consciousness such as the imagination and dreams, but again, this date marks the time when these concepts began to be recognized.

With Pluto, the biggest event that coincided with its discovery was the rise to power of Hitler and fascism. But also the Great Depression and the use of psychiatry for probing people's sub-conscious. Until then, Mars had been the sole ruler of the sign Scorpio, but we now also asign Pluto.

So, to answer your question, horoscopes before 1930 were still valid, but Pluto's symbolism wasn't so well understood before then. Of course the world still had power, secrecy and control maniacs before 1930 - we see these traits in the Bible and history. Kabbalists who wrote about the Tree of Life and later, the tarot (only drawn up in 1200), left spaces in the paths and in the tarot keys for when these projected planets would be discovered by astronomers.



The most recently discovered planet in the Kuiper (rhymes with Diaper) Belt is Eris, previously known as Xena. There is still speculation as to what Eris symbolizes but you can review an online discussion by astrologers about it at www.astro.com (go to the forum and do a search for "Eris"). I do not know anything about the Oort Cloud, but the above forum might also have some info if you do a search. Regards, Aquila

Astrologer: It is the gravitational influence of the celestial bodies that accounts for the singular development of different personalities.

Skeptic: Then what about before Pluto was discovered and after it was downgraded from planet status?

Astrologer: It is the global consciousness as expressed in a communal appreciation of the varying bodies understood to exist at the time that accounts for the singular development of different personalities.

Me: Do you even pay attention to what you write?

 

[Garrette]

Correlation...

...as proof of my mental powers.

In the past two weeks I have bought three sodas. All of them Big Red, the world's finest drink and the only soda allowed to touch my lips.

Currently, Big Red, that finest of drinks and the only soda worthy of making love to, is having a giveaway. If you buy a Big Red, that finest of drinks and current nominee for the Nobel Prize, that has a yellow cap, you have a 1 in 6 chance of winning a prize.

When I bought the first Big Red, that finest of drinks and sinfully caffeine-laden treat, I won another Big Red, that finest of drinks and overly-sugared aphrodisiac. This was intensely curious as I had been thinking I would really like to win a prize.

It was several days letter when I cashed in my yellow cap for my second Big Red, that finest of drinks and grotesquely caloried gastronomic delight, I was preoccupied and thinking of work. I won nothing.

Today, I bought my third Big Red, that finest of drinks and orgamiscally powerful delighter of palates, and was thinking "I would really like to win a fourth Big Red, that finest of drinks and seducer of otherwise strong-willed men."

I wanted it. I thought about it. I craved it. I willed it to happen.

And happen it did. Tomorrow I will cash in my yellow cap for a fourth Big Red, that finest of drinks and creater of addictions greater even than that of heroin.

Did you follow those odds? By chance, a simple 1 in 6 wins. Me? I won 2 out of 3. Parse it even further and I won 2 of 2 because I won each time I intended to win and thought positively about it.

Aquila will no doubt think I am being flippant, but I swear I am not when I say I will place the power of my Big Red, that finest of drinks and stalwart debunker of all things astrologic, against the accuracy of any astrological system desired.

 

[Aquila]

Ha ha! So, does Tylenol alleviate headaches? Does alcohol make people feel drunk? Does it hurt to get hit in the foot with a hammer? I guess we'll never know, because all we have is the patient "subjectively" reporting their feelings. Aquila, you are confused about the meaning of "subjective". There is a difference between "concrete", "subjective", and "mere opinion".

I am not confused at all. Tylenol does alleviate headaches for me, but I don't know whether this is because of the acetominophen in it altering my blood composition, or merely because I believe that taking a pill will alleviate it. Have their been experiments in which subjects were given placebos?

What does "drunk" mean? I don't drink alcohol because I don't like the effects, but I still can't describe exactly what they are.

When I accidentally hit myself with a gardening tool and went to the ER, the triage nurse asked me to rate the pain on a scale of 1-10, ten being the worst. I think I rated it at 7. But what would someone else rate their pain at? There isn't an objective standard.

You should consider actually reading a study or two; I suspect you have some misconceptions about how they are run and what their conclusions mean.

I have not bothered to read studies on drugs because I am so disgusted with the way that are advertised and pushed on the American consumer. The side effects of drugs like Claritin, Lunesta, anti-depressants, cholesterol meds, blood pressure meds, osteoporosis meds etc seem far worse than than actually having the condition. I would rather spend my time reading up on nutrition and trying to deal with these conditions by changes in diet and lifestyle.

 

[sthomson]

I am not confused at all. Tylenol does alleviate headaches for me, but I don't know whether this is because of the acetominophen in it altering my blood composition, or merely because I believe that taking a pill will alleviate it. Have their been experiments in which subjects were given placebos?

... What? Of course there have. The foundation of modern medicine is a properly-designed double-blind experiment where aspirin is compared to a placebo. They're called "Clinical Trials".

When I accidentally hit myself with a gardening tool and went to the ER, the triage nurse asked me to rate the pain on a scale of 1-10, ten being the worst. I think I rated it at 7. But what would someone else rate their pain at? There isn't an objective standard.

The point of those charts is to be subjective, and to control for individual experiences of pain. It doesn't matter that you were a 7 right at that moment - it matters that after you took codeine, you were only a 3, or after the nurse poured a bunch of hydrogen peroxide on it, you were a 10.

Astrology isn't a science. It isn't scientific. It's not even a pseudo-science. It does not take the Scientific Method as a foundation of discovery.

Psychology is sometimes scientific and sometimes not. Some disciplines use the Scientific Method as a foundation for discovery, and others do not. The ones that do are sciences. The ones that don't are philosophies.

 

[Madalch]

I am not confused at all. Tylenol does alleviate headaches for me, but I don't know whether this is because of the acetominophen in it altering my blood composition, or merely because I believe that taking a pill will alleviate it. Have their been experiments in which subjects were given placebos?

Nothing is allowed to be sold as medicine without such trials in any first world country.