perhaps not everything is lost for astrology

[Aquila]

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.

As posted in the America and Atheism thread (Philosophy and Religion section), here are the links to the Gauquelin data, which shows significant correlations between profession and positions of some planets. There are many justified criticisms of this work (sample size etc), but it still does show a positive result, and the experiments are supported by the late psychologist and author H.J. Eysenck.

http://www.planetos.info/eysenck.html

http://www.solsticepoint.com/astrologersmemorial/eysenck.html

http://www.astrology-and-science.com/ (in the section under "The Gauquelin Data)

I hope I've addressed everyone's questions and not annoyed anyone too much. I have to leave now and pay some bills.

 

[Garrette]

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.

For exactly this reason you should not be disgusted with commercial drugs and should be disgusted with astrology.

We know of the potential side effects of approved medicines because of the scientific studies performed on them. The side effects do not happen to everyone, or even a majority of those who use the drug. But the pharmaceutical companies are held to such a high standard, they are required to make known every possible, known, harmful effect, regardless of the low probability of it. And the drugs are allowed to be sold only if they are shown to work to a degree statistically sufficient to justify the low risk of side effect. In addition, the patients' doctors continue to monitor the patient so that if negative side effects occur, administration of that drug can be stopped and alternate treatments sought.

Astrology, on the other hand, does nothing to determine if it even works. You have readily admitted this. More subtly, but just as dangerously, it does nothing to determine side effects or to warn its adherents of side effects.

What side effects, you ask? Plenty. Loss of a chance to be placed in a good job because the astrology doesn't fit (graphology does this more than astrology for now, but astrology isn't innocent). Acceptance of unfounded astrological advice at the expense of educated advice concerning relationships. There's more. What does astrology do when harm or potential harm is pointed out? Nothing. Pretends it isn't there. Makes excuses. When has an astrologist ever withdrawn his/her claims after being shown wrong? When has astrology called for pulling an astrology book off the shelves because it is fatally flawed? Never and never.

When more negative information about drugs comes out, the drugs get reviewed and frequently pulled. Not so with astrology or astrologies. With them it's simply denial and excuses.

You want to demonstrate disgust? Fine. But aim it at the proper target. Aiming it at mainstream medicines while coddling the astrologers who never admit error or review their system for flaws is laziness and self-serving folderol at its height.

I'm feeling more harsh and blunt lately than usual, but I won't apologize for the tone of this post.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

As posted in the America and Atheism thread (Philosophy and Religion section), here are the links to the Gauquelin data, which shows significant correlations between profession and positions of some planets. There are many justified criticisms of this work (sample size etc), but it still does show a positive result, and the experiments are supported by the late psychologist and author H.J. Eysenck.

http://www.planetos.info/eysenck.html

http://www.solsticepoint.com/astrologersmemorial/eysenck.html

http://www.astrology-and-science.com/ (in the section under "The Gauquelin Data)

I hope I've addressed everyone's questions and not annoyed anyone too much. I have to leave now and pay some bills.

I really feel like I'm repeating myself but again I will quote Gauquelin himself (from "Astrology and Science"):

Every attempt, whether of astrologers or scientists, to produce evidence of the validity of astrological laws has been in vain. It is now quite certain that the signs in the sky which presided over our births have no power whatever to decide our fates, to affect our hereditary characteristics, or to play any part however humble in the totality of effects, random and otherwise, which form the fabric of our lives and mold our impulses to action. Confronted with science, modern and traditional astrology are seen to be imaginary doctrines.

Gauquelin proved nothing about astrology as she is writ (see where he says "modern and traditional astrology are seen to be imaginary doctrines").

 

[patnray]

When more negative information about drugs comes out, the drugs get reviewed and frequently pulled. Not so with astrology or astrologies. With them it's simply denial and excuses.

Furthermore this is not a haphazard process. When the FDA was pushed by consumers to speed up the approval of new drugs they realized that there could be problems not fully recognized in a streamlined approval process. Therefore, in collaboration with the drug manufacturers, they created a system for rapidly collecting reports of adverse reactions and procedures for follow up. All the recent instances of problems are proof that this system is working (and many of those complaining were the ones pushing for more rapid approvals in the past).

Contrast that to the "nutritional supplement" industry, which does not disclose known side effects in their advertising, and which got the law changed so they don't even have to prove their products are safe before selling them. One company is currently under indictment for suppressing reports of adverse reactions and lying to the FDA about it.

 

[quarky]

If the universe is expanding, won't we need some new signs eventually?
I was stargazing last night and spotted what looked like a dented micro-wave oven in the heavens. I think our next constellation should be an appliance.

 

[Aquila]

I really feel like I'm repeating myself but again I will quote Gauquelin himself (from "Astrology and Science"):
Quote:
Every attempt, whether of astrologers or scientists, to produce evidence of the validity of astrological laws has been in vain. It is now quite certain that the signs in the sky which presided over our births have no power whatever to decide our fates, to affect our hereditary characteristics, or to play any part however humble in the totality of effects, random and otherwise, which form the fabric of our lives and mold our impulses to action. Confronted with science, modern and traditional astrology are seen to be imaginary doctrines.

Gauquelin proved nothing about astrology as she is writ (see where he says "modern and traditional astrology are seen to be imaginary doctrines").

Gauquelin did say this, but please note where I have bolded the word signs. Gauqelin's research only found effects for houses, which go through a complete cycle every day, each of the 12 signs changing every 2 hours. This is known as the diurnal cycle. Gauquelin did not include his own research into planetary positions in the houses.

 

[Elizabeth I]

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?

You must learn the evil laugh:

BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHA...

then you rub your hands and look around sneakily...

 

[Elizabeth I]

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.

Then what's the point? If you just guess, you should have at least a 50% chance of being right. According to you, astrology doesn't even hit that mark.

 

[Aquila]

Since many of you are concerned about the ethics of astrologers, here's my opinion.

From what I've seen of modern "psychological astrology", its practitioners always go out of their way to stress free will, and to say that they are not predicting, only advising. I have often heard vivid analogies to boats "you cannot change the wind, but you can adjust your sails, tennis balls "a ball will bounce off a wall at the exact but opposite ange it is hit (karma), but you have the freedom to run towards it and change its direction", or weather "it looks like rain, but you have the free will to take an umbrella". I have never heard a modern astrologer ever predict anything negative, like death or illness, loss of job etc. There are several astrology organizations in America that train their members in the ethical use of astrology.

I do agree that astrology, like many other things can be used in a harmful way, either deliberately or out of ignorance. I don't think it is a good idea to get children involved in astrology, and I personally think that advice should not be given unless a person asks for it.

Then there is the question of money. Well, as long as astrologers do not pretend to be professional counselors, and say that they are providing entertainment, I see no reason why they shouldn't charge for that entertainment. I also think its fine for astrologers to lecture about the subject at clubs and organizations - its history and relevance to modern culture etc. If people want to pay for that, fine. Most of the money probably just goes for the tea and biscuits.

 

[Hokulele]

Since many of you are concerned about the ethics of astrologers, here's my opinion.

From what I've seen of modern "psychological astrology", its practitioners always go out of their way to stress free will, and to say that they are not predicting, only advising.

What is the difference between a prediction and advice?

I have often heard vivid analogies to boats "you cannot change the wind, but you can adjust your sails, tennis balls "a ball will bounce off a wall at the exact but opposite ange it is hit (karma), but you have the freedom to run towards it and change its direction", or weather "it looks like rain, but you have the free will to take an umbrella".

That sounds like a prediction to me.

I have never heard a modern astrologer ever predict anything negative, like death or illness, loss of job etc.

Yeah, that wouldn't really encourage repeat business, now would it?

There are several astrology organizations in America that train their members in the ethical use of astrology.

Ethical or profitable?

I do agree that astrology, like many other things can be used in a harmful way, either deliberately or out of ignorance. I don't think it is a good idea to get children involved in astrology, and I personally think that advice should not be given unless a person asks for it.

Advice based on predictions?

Then there is the question of money. Well, as long as astrologers do not pretend to be professional counselors, and say that they are providing entertainment, I see no reason why they shouldn't charge for that entertainment. I also think its fine for astrologers to lecture about the subject at clubs and organizations - its history and relevance to modern culture etc. If people want to pay for that, fine. Most of the money probably just goes for the tea and biscuits.

Wait a minute, you just stated that practitioners of "psychological astrology are giving advice. How is that just entertainment?

 

[arthwollipot]

Where's proluna gone?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

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.

How do you know that the side effects of such drugs seem much worse than the condition, unless you have actually taken the drug for the condition, or have read the research? I have only taken one class of these drugs you mention and I can categorically state that having a dry mouth, feeling a bit drowsy and sweating at night is by a huge amount preferable to curling up in a ball, sobbing, unable to do the simplest task, wanting to die and believing that everyone else would be better off if I was dead. The point where I really start getting annoyed by the side effects is the point that I know I am well on the road to recovery and will soon be able to stop taking the medication. I can often ward off a mild depression with things like good diet and exercise, but if a big one takes hold, medication is my only option and I would be dead without it.

 

[Aquila]

I would just like to correct something that I said above (I was tired):

Gauquelin did say this, but please note where I have bolded the word signs. Gauqelin's research only found effects for houses, which go through a complete cycle every day, each of the 12 signs changing every 2 hours. This is known as the diurnal cycle. Gauquelin did not include his own research into planetary positions in the houses.

I should have said that signs on the cusps of the houses change every 2hrs. The houses stay where they are - for example the 1st house is always the one beginning with the ascendant. In Gauquelin's research, the signs become unimportant - it is the position of certain planets, in certain houses which is correlated to profession. These positions are known as "power zones", the strongest of which are stradling the ascendant (houses 12 and 1), and around the Midheaven (houses 9 and 10).

 

[Aquila]

What is the difference between a prediction and advice?

Prediction forcasts what will happen. Advice suggests what a person could do to use their free will to get the most beneficial results from the positions of the planets.

That sounds like a prediction to me.

It's not prediction about the subject, merely the weather. In the case above, the astrologer doesn't predict that the subject will get wet or stay dry. He merely predicts the external weather. The subject has free will to go out or stay in or whatever.

Wait a minute, you just stated that practitioners of "psychological astrology are giving advice. How is that just entertainment?

It is not professional advice such as one would get from a professional and licenced psychologist or counselor. The word "advice" was used merely as an explanatory term to distinguish it from prediction. But as far as the legality of this sort of thing, it must, by law, be called entertainment. Personally, I would never take any advice from an astrologer and prefer to plan my own life, but I do find astrology interesting and entertaining.

 

[Cuddles]

He merely predicts the external weather.

So it is a prediction then.

 

[ben m]

Prediction forcasts what will happen. Advice suggests what a person could do to use their free will to get the most beneficial results from the positions of the planets.

Advice without "prediction" content is ... well, advice. Anyone can give good advice: "You should eat lots of vegetables and think twice about meats, fats, and carbs." "Step back and take stock of your relationships, but don't over-analyze the small stuff." "If your natural assertiveness isn't a good thing in your current workplace, maybe it's the workplace that should change, not you." You don't need an ephemerides chart to do that, nor a date of birth.

Advice that relates to a specific future trends is a prediction. If you tell a Capricorn, "I see financial storms ahead; do you have enough savings to weather them?" and you tell a Taurus, "I see opportunities ahead that you may miss if you're overcautious". Those are predictions, like it or not: you're predicting that one person will do better with more savings (compared to the status quo) and the other person will do better with more investments (compared to the stats quo). If you think that they're not testable, it shows that you're not thinking carefully about testing. What would happen, for example, if you secretly swapped the advice, telling the Taurus to do the Capricorn stuff and vice-versa? Would the outcomes, on average, be different? If so, it's testable. If not, why not switch the advice all the time---i.e. ignore what the stars are "telling you" and make it all up?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Of course astrology is testable...

http://www.davegorman.com/history_dgiae.htm

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Gauquelin did say this, but please note where I have bolded the word signs. Gauqelin's research only found effects for houses, which go through a complete cycle every day, each of the 12 signs changing every 2 hours. This is known as the diurnal cycle. Gauquelin did not include his own research into planetary positions in the houses.

Huh?

What part of "modern and traditional astrology are seen to be imaginary doctrines" are you missing?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Of course astrology is testable...

http://www.davegorman.com/history_dgiae.htm

Insufficient sample size?

 

[Aquila]

This is a duplicate post. My computer is running slow(ly) this morning, probably because I just cleaned out all my temporary files and cookies. When I tried to submit this post it didn't work, so I tried again...and again...and again. Oops.