perhaps not everything is lost for astrology

[Aquila]

Sorry, this is a duplicate post.

 

[Aquila]

So it is a prediction then.

Yes, it is, but that prediction does not take away anyone's freedom - they still have the choice whether they want to accept the prediction (or not), or alter their behavior if they do accept it.

Scientists make predictions based on scientific laws, and no one critiscses them. For example, NASA would not have been able to put a rover on Mars without using predictions about the orbits of the planets and their gravitational effects based on Newton's Laws. When engineers build bridges or airplanes they also predict how these structures will behave.

I am not saying that weather prediction using astrology is scientific - but looking at the astrology of natural disasters in hindsight, some astrolgers have noticed certain configurations of planets. I think the tsunami in Indonesea has been mentioned before, with reference to Uranus (keywords: sudden, unexpected) in Pisces (keywords: oceans, water, dreams, subconscious). If we look at the other planets, we see that Mars was also square Uranus. This doesn't mean that every time Mars squares in Uranus there is going to be an earthquake or tsunami, but it is one more piece of information that astrologers make a note of.

There are some interesting astrology books which document this sort of information. There are also handreds of "astro-bio" articles in astrology magazines that anecdotally point out how the lives of celebrities might be correlated with their horoscopes. Instead of just criticizing astrology because it is not scientific, why don't you skeptics read the more sensible stuff and look at it with an open mind?

 

[Aquila]

Sorry, duplicate post.

 

[sthomson]

but looking at the astrology of natural disasters in hindsight, some astrolgers have noticed certain configurations of planets. I think the tsunami in Indonesea has been mentioned before, with reference to Uranus (keywords: sudden, unexpected) in Pisces (keywords: oceans, water, dreams, subconscious). If we look at the other planets, we see that Mars was also square Uranus.

This is postdiction not prediction. In science, it's called "observation": astrologists observe that sometimes natural disasters happen when planets are configured a certain way. This is the FIRST step in the scientific method. The next step is to form a hypothesis: "a particular configuration of planets causes tsunamis". Then, you test that hypothesis.

This might just be entertainment, but it is by far the most interesting type of entertainment that I find available.

Really? I like knitting - that's pretty enjoyable entertainment.

Instead of just criticizing astrology because it is not scientific, why don't you skeptics read the more sensible stuff and look at it with an open mind?

More sensible stuff? What is our basis for sensibility, if it's not the scientific method?

 

[Aquila]

Huh?

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

I am not missing any of it. The doctrines were seen to be imaginary by Gauquelin, at the time. What he called "modern" astrology, at the time, was not substantiated by his research. Gauquelin's research actually spurned a new astrology, which only looks at planets in houses, not signs, like the older astrology.

 

[Aquila]

This is postdiction not prediction. In science, it's called "observation": astrologists observe that sometimes natural disasters happen when planets are configured a certain way. This is the FIRST step in the scientific method. The next step is to form a hypothesis: "a particular configuration of planets causes tsunamis". Then, you test that hypothesis.

Yes, I did say that astrologers do this in hindsight.

Quote by me (before I edited it to "one of the most interesting...;the original was deleted due to duplicates while you were answering it.This might just be entertainment, but it is by far the most interesting type of entertainment that I find available

Really? I like knitting - that's pretty enjoyable entertainment.

Perhaps I should have said "passive" entertainment. I enjoy knitting too.

 

[sthomson]

This might just be entertainment, but it is by far the most interesting type of entertainment that I find available

I guess the difference between you and me is that I HAVE studied astrology, read Linda Goodman's Sun Signs, and followed to some extent "modern astrology", and I've found no interesting insights or observations that I couldn't get for free out of a fortune cookie.

 

[Hokulele]

Yes, it is, but that prediction does not take away anyone's freedom - they still have the choice whether they want to accept the prediction (or not), or alter their behavior if they do accept it.

Scientists make predictions based on scientific laws, and no one critiscses them. For example, NASA would not have been able to put a rover on Mars without using predictions about the orbits of the planets and their gravitational effects based on Newton's Laws. When engineers build bridges or airplanes they also predict how these structures will behave.

If astrology makes predictions (and here you are claiming specifically that it does), then there is something that can be tested, regardless of if the person chooses to take actions based on that prediction or not. In fact, this is specifically what the link Professor Yaffle provided was saying.

I am not saying that weather prediction using astrology is scientific - but looking at the astrology of natural disasters in hindsight, some astrolgers have noticed certain configurations of planets. I think the tsunami in Indonesea has been mentioned before, with reference to Uranus (keywords: sudden, unexpected) in Pisces (keywords: oceans, water, dreams, subconscious). If we look at the other planets, we see that Mars was also square Uranus.

Why do you say that this isn't scientific?

This doesn't mean that every time Mars squares in Uranus there is going to be an earthquake or tsunami, but it is one more piece of information that astrologers make a note of.

If it isn't repeatable or reliable, why bother with it?

There are some interesting astrology books which document this sort of information. There are also handreds of "astro-bio" articles in astrology magazines that anecdotally point out how the lives of celebrities might be correlated with their horoscopes. Instead of just criticizing astrology because it is not scientific, why don't you skeptics read the more sensible stuff and look at it with an open mind?

Anectdotally? Might be? And this is the sensible stuff?

 

[Garrette]

Aquila, you remind me of a very nice woman I knew some time ago, and since she was reasonably intelligent, this isn't meant as an insult.

This lady friend of mine was highly into astrology and had several large and expensive books on it. Once, in order to convince me of astrology's validity, she took her favorite book and turned to my sun sign which she admittedly knew and read to me the entire five long pages regarding that sign. (It might not have been five; I just know it was long). When she finished, she said with triumph "See! That's you exactly!"

So I convinced her to do two things:

1. Go back through the reading line by line and address each claim. The result:

• Over half the claims did not apply to me
• As many claims as applied to me also applied to her (different sign)
• All of the claims that did apply to me were directly contradicted with an exactly opposite claim within one sentence

2. Pick any other sign (her choice) and read it line by line to see how well it applied. The result:

• It was just as accurate as my actual sign reading
• It applied equally to ear as it did to me

She readily admitted these results but took them as further proof of astrologies wonders. "After all, something so universally applicable must be true!"


Now your argument may be that you are speaking of a different type of astrology, but let's recap what you have said about your astrology:

1. It isn't scientific
2. It has not been shown to be better than would be predicted by chance
3. It doesn't predict anything
4. It does predict things
5. It postdicts things
6. It's for entertainment only
7. It gives advice
8. It has, at best, superficial correlation--recognized only in hindsight--as its evidence for validity

Tell me, please, why on earth we should not conclude that it is the same old hokum in a different wrapper?


Edit: Hokulele posted her more succinct post while I was composing mine. My planets must be misaligned.

 

[Madalch]

Gauquelin's research actually spurned a new astrology, which only looks at planets in houses, not signs, like the older astrology.

I think most scientists spurn astrology, both old and new.

 

[Garrette]

I am not missing any of it. The doctrines were seen to be imaginary by Gauquelin, at the time. What he called "modern" astrology, at the time, was not substantiated by his research. Gauquelin's research actually spurned a new astrology, which only looks at planets in houses, not signs, like the older astrology.

This is just like the crop circle crowd.

Yeah, those guys showed how to make really complex crop circles and you guys proved that these particular crop circles were manmade, and these, and these, and theseandtheseandtheseandtheseandthese.

But you haven't shown that this particular crop circle is manmade and there's no way it possibly ever could even remotely conceivably have been manmade.

Except for those few flaws you're about to point out but that doesn't account for this crop circle over here....

 

[Garrette]

I think most scientists spurn astrology, both old and new.

Nah. Noo scientists like astrology.

 

[Aquila]

I think most scientists spurn astrology, both old and new.

OK, I meant to say spurred, meaning to form an outgrowth, like a promentory piece of land that sticks out from a coastline. It's kind of old fashioned English I think. I know you're going to love this - my mistake might be because Mercury is currently retrograde....

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I am not missing any of it. The doctrines were seen to be imaginary by Gauquelin, at the time. What he called "modern" astrology, at the time, was not substantiated by his research. Gauquelin's research actually spurned a new astrology, which only looks at planets in houses, not signs, like the older astrology.

Ah. I see. All the old astrology was wrong; even though it had "stood the test of time" and is "proven" correct by thousands, or possibly millions, of true believers every day even now. Sounds a lot like the New Astrology.

 

[quarky]

o.k., maybe not an appliance.

a whale would be cool.

 

[Hokulele]

OK, I meant to say spurred, meaning to form an outgrowth, like a promentory piece of land that sticks out from a coastline. It's kind of old fashioned English I think. I know you're going to love this - my mistake might be because Mercury is currently retrograde....

Sounds to me like astrology isn't as good for giving advice as it is for making excuses.

 

[Hokulele]

o.k., maybe not an appliance.

a whale would be cool.

Check out Cetus. Although it isn't part of the zodiac, it does have Mira, a very cool variable star.

 

[Aquila]

I guess the difference between you and me is that I HAVE studied astrology, read Linda Goodman's Sun Signs, and followed to some extent "modern astrology", and I've found no interesting insights or observations that I couldn't get for free out of a fortune cookie.

Sun sign astrology is not very useful for trying to see how the transiting or progressed planets are influencing our chart, since there are 9 other planets (sun and moon are called planets by astrologers). By "sensible" astrology, I meant the kind which examines a person's complete horoscope, the transits, progressions, solar returns, relocation maps and so forth. As Proluna explained somewhere near the beginning of this thread, when astrologers talk about Geminis receiving mail today, they are talking about the billions of Geminis all over the earth, and of course it is rubbish. Things like this are completely made up to help sell newspapers and non-astrology magazines. It is a well known fact that newspapers with daily horoscopes sell more copies than those without them. If this is what you mean by modern astrology, I'm not surprised that you haven't seen any interesting observations. Please borrow a good psychological astrology book from the library and then comment on it. For example "Astrology, Karma and Transformation" by Stephen Arroyo, The Inner Sky by Steven Forrest or anything by Liz Greene.

 

[Aquila]

Garette - please read the post above to sthomson. Your lady friend was trying to convince you about Sun sign astrology. I am not.
Before criticizing astrology any more, please show me some arguments claiming that complete horoscopes , with Sun thru Pluto are rubbish.

 

[Hokulele]

It is a well known fact that newspapers with daily horoscopes sell more copies than those without them.

Someone forgot to notify the Wall Street Journal.

Before criticizing astrology any more, please show me some arguments claiming that complete horoscopes , with Sun thru Pluto are rubbish.

Because the very term "complete horoscope" is rubbish. No two astrologers on the planet can agree as to what constitutes a "complete horoscope". I would suggest looking up the No True Scotsman fallacy.